Flats 19, 25 and 27 The Albany, 240 London Road, Leicester, LE2 1RH
BIR/00FN/LIS/2021/0012 · LIS · Leicester · decided 6 Apr 2022
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal found the 2021 roof works reasonably required and the consultation complied with, but held that the sinking fund belongs to the lessees so they may decline further advance payments until their credits are used, and made a section 20C order in favour of one applicant.
| Outcome | Reduced |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Order made |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Peppercorn Property Investment Ltd |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | An estate, 27 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 |
| Items in dispute | administration charges, major works, reserve fund |
| Items disallowed or reduced | reserve fund |
| 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; 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
The Albany is a development of 27 residential flats in Leicester arranged in three blocks.
- freeholder
Respondent : Peppercorn Property Investment Ltd
- years
service charges for years from 2013 to 2021 were challenged
- outcome
No additional service charge payments will be collectable from lessees until their credit balances are exhausted
- items reduced
The existing sinking fund belongs to the individual lessees according to the state of their running service charge accounts.
- s20c
None of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the Respondent in these proceedings are to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by Ms [name]
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.