37 Hall Road East Liverpool, L23 8TT
MAN/00CA/LAM/2021/0006 · appointment of a manager · Sefton · decided 7 Dec 2022
No plain-English summary for this decision yet. See the original.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Fernhawk Property Management Limited |
| Management company | Fernhawk Property Management Limited |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 4 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | insurance, major works, repairs and maintenance, reserve fund, utilities, administration charges |
| Items disallowed or reduced | repairs and maintenance |
| 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
subdivided into four self-contained flats in 1963
- freeholder
underleases are granted out of a long leasehold interest held by Fernhawk Property Management Limited, which as lessor is responsible for managing the Property
- management company
The Management Company, Fernhawk Property Management Limited, appeared not to be named as a Respondent
- outcome
The Tribunal considers it just and convenient to appoint the Applicant’s proposed manager, Ms [name], as the Tribunal appointed manager with effective from 1 January 2023
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.