Flats 30 and 26 Endwood Court, Birmingham, B20 2RZ
BIR/00CN/LIS/2024/0008 · LIS · Birmingham · decided 20 Mar 2024
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal found the 2019 external redecoration and access cover charges reasonable and payable, rejected the leaseholders' challenge, and made no order under section 20C or paragraph 5A.
| 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 | Abacona Investments Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 36 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2019 |
| Items in dispute | management fees, other, repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| 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
two of some 36 flats within the Endwood Court development
- freeholder
Respondent : Abacona Investments Limited
- years
Consequently, this application proceeds with a challenge to the 2019 service charge year only.
- outcome
the conclusion of the tribunal is that the service charges sought to be recovered for the Phase One works are reasonable.
- s20c
we do not consider it appropriate to make an order under s.20C.
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.