17 Albion Drive, Larkfield, Kent ME20 6FG
CHI/29UP/LSC/2024/0045 · service charges · Tonbridge and Malling · decided 30 Jan 2025
figures not yet checkedThe parties agreed the revised 2024/2025 estimated service charge budget as payable, and the tribunal made a section 20C order that costs up to and including the case management hearing cannot be added to the service charge, with no further costs order.
| Outcome | Reduced |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Order made |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Orchard 1 Management Company Limited |
| Management company | Orchard 1 Management Company Limited |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2023, 2024 |
| Items in dispute | not stated |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | not stated as one figure |
| Total found payable | not stated as one figure |
| 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; the two readings disagreed on something, so these figures haven't been checked yet and are left out of the statistics. Compare with the original.
What the decision says
- freeholder
Respondent : [name] 1 Management Company Limited
- years
for the years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025
- outcome
various concessions were properly made by the Respondent
- s20c
none of the costs up to and including those incurred in attending at the case management hearing on 16th October 2024 are recoverable
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.