22b Kensington Court, London W8 5DP
LON/00AW/LSC/2020/0194 · service charges · Kensington and Chelsea · decided 6 Aug 2021
figures not yet checkedThe Tribunal reduced several years of gas, cleaning, repair and fire equipment charges, refused dispensation for the 2010 fire alarm works and the 2011 front door painting so those costs were capped at £250, granted dispensation for the 2012 and 2013 gas contract, and refused the section 20C and paragraph 5A applications as unnecessary because the landlord conceded its litigation costs were not recoverable.
| Outcome | Reduced |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Refused |
| Section 20 consultation | Consultation failure found |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Melhurst Investments Ltd. |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | One flat, 8 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 |
| Items in dispute | cleaning and grounds, insurance, major works, management fees, other, repairs and maintenance, utilities |
| Items disallowed or reduced | cleaning and grounds, other, repairs and maintenance, utilities |
| 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
- flats n
converted building containing a total of 8 flats spread over 6 floors
- freeholder
Respondent : Melhurst Investments Ltd.
- years
each of the service charge years ending on 31 March from 2010 to 2017 inclusive
- outcome
The sum of £122.37 was, therefore, not payable and should be deducted from the total charge for maintenance.
- items reduced
The Tribunal therefore deducted £86.40 from the overall sum under this head, making a revised total of £963.60
- s20c
is refused as an order is not necessary
- s20
the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Respondent had shown that the requirements of section 20(1)(b) of the Act had been met
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.