Flat B, 469 Fulham Palace Road, London SW6 5SU
LON/00AN/LAC/2019/0001 · administration charges · Hammersmith and Fulham · decided 13 May 2019
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal found the £120 charges and the £600 legal costs not payable, the £36 ground rent demand charge payable, and ordered the landlord to refund £300 of fees and barred it from charging its costs of these proceedings as administration charges.
| Outcome | Reduced |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Assethold Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Eagerstates Limited |
| Building | One flat |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2019 |
| Items in dispute | administration charges, legal and professional fees |
| Items disallowed or reduced | administration charges, legal and professional fees |
| Total demanded | not stated as one figure |
| Total found payable | £36 |
| Fees or costs ordered | the respondent to reimburse application and hearing fees £300 |
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
- freeholder
Assethold Limited
- agent
through its managing agent Eagerstates Limited
- outcome
is unreasonable and is not payable by the Applicant.
- items reduced
The Respondent has conceded that the sum of £600 for legal
- costs
of £300 application and hearing fees.
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.