2, Hutton Close, Oakley Road, Luton LU4 9QW
CAM/00KA/LSC/2018/0082 · service charges · Luton · decided 20 May 2019
The Tribunal found the service charges for 2014 to 2018 reasonable and payable, but the £240 of administration and legal review fees were not reasonable because the lease did not permit them to be charged at the time.
| Outcome | Reduced |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| 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 | Firstport Property Services Ltd |
| Building | An estate |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 |
| Items in dispute | administration charges, cleaning and grounds, management fees, other, repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | administration charges |
| Total demanded | not stated as one figure |
| Total found payable | £4,297.94 |
| 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
- freeholder
(2) Proxima GR Properties Ltd
- agent
(1) Firstport Property Services Ltd
- years
The periods in issue are the accounting years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
- outcome
Administration Charges and Legal Review Fees of £60.00 each, totalling £240.00 are not reasonable
- items reduced
Administration Charges and Legal Review Fees of £60.00 each, totalling £240.00 are not reasonable
- total payable
Total £4,297.94
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.