Chalets 67, 68 & 123, Kingsdown Park Holiday Village, Kingsdown, near Deal, Kent CT14 8EU
CHI/29UE/LSC/2020/0033 · service charges · Dover · decided 30 Oct 2020
The tribunal found that the 2018 legal fees of £35,519.50 incurred in the Upper Tribunal occupancy case were not recoverable from the applicants because the parties agreed 'no order as to costs', while the retained land invoices of £8,191.50 were held to be not invalid for lack of notice to lessees, and a section 20C order was made preventing costs of this application being added to 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 | Shearbarn Holiday Park Limited |
| Management company | Tractbrook Ltd |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | An estate, 149 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2018 |
| Items in dispute | legal and professional fees, other |
| Items disallowed or reduced | legal and professional 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. Compare with the original.
What the decision says
- flats n
There are 149 lessees on the holiday park contributing an equal share
- freeholder
Respondent : Shearbarn Holiday Park Limited.
- management company
Tractbrook Ltd were the management company
- years
The Second Applicant claims that the Respondent does not have the right to recover the costs from all leaseholders in the 2018 Management Fee
- outcome
The Tribunal therefore finds in favour of the First and Second Applicants in relation to this issue.
- items reduced
The Tribunal therefore finds in favour of the First and Second Applicants in relation to this issue.
- s20c
The Tribunal makes a further section 20C order prohibiting the Respondent from seeking any costs of this application through the service charge.
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.