44 Pevensey Avenue, Enfield, EN1 3HT
BIR/00AK/LIS/2023/0003 · LIS · Enfield · decided 17 Nov 2023
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal dismissed both parties' Rule 13 costs applications and refused a section 20C order, but made a paragraph 5A order extinguishing 50% of the Council's litigation costs that could be claimed from the leaseholder.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Refused |
| 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 | not stated |
| Items in dispute | major works |
| Items disallowed or reduced | major works |
| Total demanded | £11,901.41 |
| Total found payable | £9,898.69 |
| 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
a block of twelve flats in a residential development
- outcome
DECISION ON COSTS APPLICATIONS
- items reduced
the reasonable cost incurred on the works is the sum of £118,784.36
- total demanded
The proceedings concern the payability of a service charge for £11,901.41 for major works demanded from the Respondent
- total payable
The Respondent’s share is one twelfth, being £9,898.69.
- s20c
We therefore reject the application for a section 20C order.
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.