1-18 Cobham Court, Tewkesbury Road, Cheltenham, GL50 9BA
CHI/23UB/LSC/2023/0122 · service charges · Cheltenham · decided 30 Jul 2024
The tribunal decided that the £600 survey cost and £1,362 investigatory cost for cracks in Flats 13 to 16 are reasonable and payable by the leaseholders of Flats 9 to 18 other than Flat 11, at 10% each, while Flats 1 to 8 and Flats 1, 3, 11 and 17 under their different leases do not contribute beyond their own buildings.
| Outcome | Payable as demanded |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not clear |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Landlord or management company |
| Freeholder / landlord | Idris Davies Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 8 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2023 |
| Items in dispute | repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £1,962 |
| Total found payable | £600 |
| Fees or costs ordered | none stated |
Read from the decision automatically: a regular-expression pass, then a language model whose every value must quote the decision word for word. Compare with the original.
What the decision says
- flats n
blocks of eighteen studio flats in total
- freeholder
Applicant : Idris Davies Limited
- years
in respect of the 2023 service charge year
- outcome
The tribunal determines that the sum of £600 for survey works and the £1,362 for further investigatory works is reasonable and payable by the leaseholders of Flats 9 to 18 (other than Flat 11)
- total demanded
The total amount the subject of the application is £1,962.
The passages each figure was read from, verbatim. People's names are replaced with [name].
The original
If this decision relates to your home and you'd like it removed from this site, email hello@rentrisecheck.uk with the address or the case reference (removal requests).
Spotted an error on this page? Email hello@rentrisecheck.uk with what is wrong; the decision's reference goes in the subject.
Past decisions are not a prediction. Each tribunal decides on the evidence in front of it.