Charmouth Court, Fairfield Park, Lyme Regis, Dorset, DT7 3DS
CHI/19UH/LSC/2021/0060 · service charges · Dorset · decided 21 Feb 2022
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal held the original s20 notice valid and reasonable at about £2,500 plus VAT, but refused to allow the landlord to recover an extra £1,000 plus VAT because the increase was not properly disclosed, and refused the leaseholder's section 20C request.
| Outcome | Not stated |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Refused |
| Section 20 consultation | Consultation failure found |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2021 |
| Items in dispute | other |
| Items disallowed or reduced | other |
| Total demanded | £4,200 |
| Total found payable | £2,500 |
| 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
- flats n
out of a total of eleven leaseholders
- years
service charges for 2021 and
- items reduced
the additional £1,000 plus VAT
- total demanded
in the sum of £4,200 pursuant to section 27A
- total payable
maximum sum of £2,500 plus VAT
- s20c
The Applicant's request to the Tribunal to grant an order under s20C in her favour is refused.
- s20
should have been disclosed in full in the second notice
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.