40 Pippin Avenue, Halesowen, West Midlands, B63 2PW
BIR/00CR/LSC/2018/0009 · service charges · Dudley · decided 22 Jul 2019
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal found the estimated service charges for 2014 to 2019 reasonable and payable, reduced the £100 fly-tipping administration charge to £50, refused a section 20C order, and ordered that the applicant pay only 25% of administration charges for litigation costs under paragraph 5A.
| Outcome | Not stated |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Refused |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited |
| Management company | 14-44 Apperley Way and 18 -44 Pippin Avenue Halesowen RTM Company Limited |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | One flat, 10 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2014, 2018 |
| Items in dispute | administration charges, cleaning and grounds, insurance, legal and professional fees, management fees, other, repairs and maintenance, reserve fund |
| Items disallowed or reduced | administration charges |
| 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
- freeholder
The freehold of the Property is still held by Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited.
- management company
14-44 Apperley Way and 18 -44 Pippin Avenue Halesowen RTM Company Limited (‘the Respondent’) acquired the right to manage the Mansion on 6th April 2014.
- years
the service charge periods from 1st July 2014 to 30th June 2018 were payable
- items reduced
The Tribunal considers the administration fee to be excessive and determines a sum of £50 is reasonable and payable by the Applicant.
- s20c
the Tribunal does not consider that it would be just and equitable to make any order in favour of the Applicant under section 20C of the Act.
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.