93-104 Rupert Street, Nechells, Birmingham, B7 5DS
BIR/00CN/LAM/2022/0008 · appointment of a manager · Birmingham · decided 20 Apr 2023
No plain-English summary for this decision yet. See the original.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not clear |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Sycamore Management (Nechells) No 1 Ltd |
| Management company | Sycamore Management (Nechells) No 1 Ltd |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 13 flats · 2 decisions about this building |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2021 |
| Items in dispute | 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
- flats n
containing 13 flats/maisonettes
- freeholder
The Respondent is Sycamore Management (Nechells) No 1 Ltd, the freeholder and management company currently responsible for the management of the subject premises.
- management company
the freeholder and management company currently responsible for the management of the subject premises
- years
the service charges demanded on account for the service charge year 2021/2022 were payable and reasonable
- outcome
The Tribunal refuses the Applicant’s application for an order appointing Mr [name] as manager of the subjected premises.
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.