7 Oaklands Road Bromley Kent BR1 3SJ
LON/00AF/LAC/2019/0016 · administration charges · Bromley · decided 28 Aug 2019
figures not yet checkedThe leaseholders were found liable to pay a £36 administration charge for the collection of ground rent, as the lease allowed the landlord to employ professionals for rent collection, and the tribunal refused a section 20C order.
| Outcome | Payable as demanded |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Refused |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Assethold Ltd. |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Eagerstates Ltd. |
| Building | One flat |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | administration charges |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £36 |
| 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
Respondent : Assethold Ltd.
- agent
Representative : Eagerstates Ltd.
- outcome
The tribunal determines that the Applicants are liable to pay an administration charge in respect of the collection of ground rent.
- total demanded
in the sum of £36.00 for the collection of the ground rent
- s20c
the tribunal declines to make an order under either section 20C or Schedule 5A as sought by the Applicants.
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.