5 Rigel Close, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN25 2LH

CHI/00HX/LAC/2019/0002 · administration charges · Swindon · decided 10 Apr 2019

figures not yet checked

The tribunal dismissed the leaseholder's challenge to a £100 plus VAT registration fee for subletting because it had no jurisdiction to decide its reasonableness, and it made an order under section 20C that the landlord's costs of the proceedings cannot be added to the service charge.

Outcome	Dismissed or struck out
Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case)	Order made
Section 20 consultation	Not in issue
Who applied	Leaseholder(s)
Freeholder / landlord	Furatto Limited
Management company	The Oaks (Swindon) Management Company Limited
Managing agent	Pier Management Limited
Building	One flat
Service charge years in dispute	not stated
Items in dispute	administration charges
Items disallowed or reduced	none stated
Total demanded	not stated as one figure
Total found payable	not stated as one figure
Fees or costs ordered	fees of £50 to be reimbursed by a party

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: his landlord, Furatto Limited
management company: The Oaks (Swindon) Management Company Limited (3)
agent: Pier Management Limited has requested a copy of the tenancy agreements
outcome: I am therefore compelled, reluctantly, to dismiss the application
s20c: I consider that it is just and equitable for an order to be made under section 20C

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.