9 Stancliffe Drive, Pendlebury, Swinton, M27 4FU
MAN/00BR/LSC/2019/0008 · service charges · Salford · decided 23 Aug 2019
The tribunal found the service charges, reserve fund and administration and debt collection fees for 2015 to 2018 payable and reasonable, with a small reduction only in the sense that the charges were allowed as demanded.
| Outcome | Payable as demanded |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Landlord or management company |
| Freeholder / landlord | Residential Management Group Limited |
| Management company | Residential Management Group Limited |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | An estate |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 |
| Items in dispute | administration charges, cleaning and grounds, other, reserve fund |
| 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 | 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
- management company
The Applicant is the Management Company responsible for the maintenance of the estate known as Nightingale Gardens.
- years
the service and administrative charges in the service charge years set out below are payable and reasonable
- outcome
We determine that the service and administrative charges in the service charge years set out below are payable and reasonable:
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.