65 Hainault Road, Leytonstone, London E11 1EA

LON/00BH/LSC/2021/0042 · service charges · Waltham Forest · decided 19 Apr 2022

figures not yet checked

The tribunal found that most of the 2016 to 2019 service charges were not reasonable, ordered the excess to be repaid to the tenants, and made orders preventing the respondent from recovering its costs of the proceedings through the service charge.

Outcome	Reduced
Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case)	Order made
Section 20 consultation	Not in issue
Who applied	Leaseholder(s)
Freeholder / landlord	Foxglade Properties Ltd.
Management company	none named
Managing agent	none named
Building	A block, 3 flats
Service charge years in dispute	2016
Items in dispute	cleaning and grounds, management fees, repairs and maintenance
Items disallowed or reduced	cleaning and grounds, management fees
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

flats n: the tenants of the 3 flats at the property
freeholder: Respondent : Foxglade Properties Ltd.
years: 2016 1,590.00 (p 91) 600.00
outcome: the amount to be repaid to the tenants is £8,056.27 less
items reduced: none of the carpet cleaning costs will be allowed
total demanded: 8,056.27 4,065.48
total payable: 8,056.27 4,065.48
s20c: Orders are made pursuant to section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant 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.