Flat 2 Burlington Court, Fenwick Road, London, SE15 4HS
LON/00BE/LSC/2023/0337 · service charges · Southwark · decided 11 Mar 2024
The tribunal found the £885 charge for redecorating the communal hallway in October 2023 lawful and reasonable, the consultation requirements having been met, and refused the leaseholder's requests for a cost limitation order and a refund of fees.
| Outcome | Payable as demanded |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Refused |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Assethold Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | One flat, 4 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2023 |
| Items in dispute | repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £885 |
| 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
The Property is one of four flats in a purpose-built block of flats.
- freeholder
the correct Respondent was Assethold Limited, the freeholder.
- years
no issue was taken in respect of years other than 2023.
- outcome
the works of redecoration to the hallway carried out in about October 2023, for which the Applicant was charged £885 were lawful and reasonable.
- total demanded
for which the Applicant was charged £885 were lawful and reasonable.
- s20c
The Tribunal does not make an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
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.