39a Arundel Road, Littlehampton, West Sussex BN17 7BY
CHI/45UC/LIS/2019/0081 · LIS · Arun · decided 8 Oct 2020
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal found that pre-2014 arrears were not payable under section 20B, that 2015 reserve fund contributions of £1250 were reasonable but later reserve demands were reduced to £300 per year, and it made a section 20C order in the respondent's favour.
| Outcome | Reduced |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not clear |
| 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 | none named |
| Building | One flat |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2014 |
| Items in dispute | cleaning and grounds, insurance, management fees, repairs and maintenance, reserve fund |
| Items disallowed or reduced | reserve fund |
| Total demanded | £3,750 |
| 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
- years
2014 938.59
- outcome
the Tribunal determines that no part of the service charges said to be due up to and including 31 December 2013 are payable by the Respondent.
- items reduced
the reserve contribution of £1750.00 pa. (£588.33 per lessee) demanded in subsequent years is unjustified.
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.