2, 3 & 21 Northumberland Court, Cliftonville, Margate, Kent CT9 3BS
CHI/29UN/LSC/2024/0102 · service charges · Thanet · decided 20 Oct 2025
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal found almost all of the challenged service charges for 2019 to 2023 payable, including the insurance premium and reserve fund collection, reducing only two sums of £400 and £750, and refused the leaseholders' applications for orders limiting landlord costs.
| Outcome | Reduced |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Refused |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Northumberland Court Residents (Cliftonville) Limited |
| Management company | Northumberland Court Residents (Cliftonville) Limited |
| Managing agent | Managed Partnerships Ltd |
| Building | A block, 42 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 |
| Items in dispute | administration charges, insurance, management fees, reserve fund |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £923,466 |
| 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
- flats n
a block of 42 apartments originally
- freeholder
The First Respondent (Northumberland Court Residents (Cliftonville) Limited) holds a headlease
- agent
this was fully explained in the Managed Partnerships Ltd’s letter of 16 September 2024
- years
The Application seeks a determination of the payability and reasonableness of service charges for the years 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23
- outcome
this Tribunal determines that all the challenged sums are payable, save for two sums, one of £400 and the other of £750
- total demanded
The total value of service charges put in issue is some £923,466
- s20c
the Tribunal do not consider that it would be just and equitable to make any order under section 20C
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.