54 Mearsbeck Apartments, Sefton Road, Morecambe LA3 1DZ
MAN/30UH/LSC/2022/0032 · service charges · Lancaster · decided 3 Feb 2024
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal found the leaseholders were barred from challenging charges agreed before they bought the flat, that the landlord's failure to consult capped their share of the 2020 roof repair costs at £250, that a 2021 roof invoice is payable in full, and that the landlord cannot add the costs of these proceedings to the service charge.
| Outcome | Reduced |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Order made |
| Section 20 consultation | Consultation failure found |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Residential Management Group Ltd |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Residential Management Group Ltd |
| Building | One flat, 24 flats · 2 decisions about this building |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2019, 2020, 2021 |
| Items in dispute | legal and professional fees, repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | legal and professional fees, repairs and maintenance |
| Total demanded | not stated as one figure |
| Total found payable | not stated as one figure |
| Fees or costs ordered | no order for costs |
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
is a 6-storey block of 24 flats
- agent
Respondent’s representative : Residential Management Group Ltd
- years
service charge years commencing on 1 April 2019,2020 and 2021
- outcome
the relevant contribution due from the Applicants in respect of the total of the costs referred in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the [name] is reduced to and capped at £250
- items reduced
the relevant contribution due from the Applicants in respect of the total of the costs referred in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the [name] is reduced to and capped at £250
- s20c
the applications as regards Section 20C and paragraph 5A should both be granted
- s20
did not comply with the consultation requirements and had not made any application to the Tribunal to dispense
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.