82 Great Western Road Westminster W11 1AF
LON/00BK/LSC/2019/0380 · service charges · Westminster · decided 18 Mar 2020
The tribunal found no service charge costs had been levied for the challenged works items or the proposed Project X108 for 2017/18 and 2018/19, so there was nothing to determine, and it refused section 20C and paragraph 5 orders and a refund of the applicant's fees.
| Outcome | Not payable |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Refused |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | One flat |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2017, 2018 |
| Items in dispute | other, repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | other, repairs and maintenance |
| 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. Compare with the original.
What the decision says
- years
years 2017/2018 and 2018/19
- outcome
The Tribunal found that there were no service charge costs levied in respect of any of the specific works items
- items reduced
As no charge had been made by the respondent to the applicant for this item, there was no cost and hence service charge element to determine as reasonable and payable by the applicant.
- s20c
the Tribunal declines to make an order under S.20C preventing the respondent adding the cost of their response
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.