Service Charge Check
part of Rent Rise Check: rent increases, repayment orders and licensing for renters

← Decisions near HP9 1QW

20 Grove Court, Beaconsfield Bucks HP9 1QW

CAM/11UE/LSC/2019/0058 · service charges · Buckinghamshire · decided 7 Feb 2020

The tribunal found the garage fascia decoration and the first 844 pounds railings charge payable, disallowed a second 844 pounds railings charge, the interest charge and the garage paint colour charge, and made no section 20C order.

OutcomeReduced
Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case)Refused
Section 20 consultationNot in issue
Who appliedLeaseholder(s)
Freeholder / landlordnot a company, or not stated
Management companynone named
Managing agentnone named
BuildingOne flat, 10 flats
Service charge years in dispute2018
Items in disputemajor works, other, repairs and maintenance
Items disallowed or reducednone stated
Total demanded£2,034.01
Total found payablenot stated as one figure
Fees or costs orderednone 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
two level ten maisonettes above on first and second floor
years
(1) Year 2018, actual service charge
outcome
Nil is payable.
total demanded
These were four items only, totalling £2,034.01.
s20c
That no order under S.20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, barring the recovery of costs from the applicant, incurred by the respondent, arising from this application be made.

The passages each figure was read from, verbatim. People's names are replaced with [name].

The original

Later rulings on the same case (costs, section 20C, permission to appeal): 27 Dec 2019.

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.