172B Epsom Road, Guildford, GU1 2RR
CHI/43UD/LIS/2019/0079 · LIS · Guildford · decided 2 Jul 2020
The tribunal set the service charges recoverable from the leaseholder for each year from 2013/14 to 2018/19 at lower amounts than claimed, and found no administration charges recoverable.
| Outcome | Reduced |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not clear |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Landlord or management company |
| Freeholder / landlord | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | One flat, 3 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 |
| Items in dispute | administration charges, cleaning and grounds, insurance, legal and professional fees, major works, management fees, repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | administration charges, cleaning and grounds, management fees |
| 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. Compare with the original.
What the decision says
- flats n
the total floor area of the five units
- years
The Particulars of Claim filed in the county court allege that the Respondent has failed to pay the service charges demanded on account for the six years 2014/15 – 2018/19 inclusive.
- outcome
The administration charges recoverable by the Respondent are Nil.
- items reduced
The cost is therefore disallowed.
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.