Ground Floor Flat, 8 City Walk Apartments, 29 Seward Street, EC1V 3RF
LON/00AU/LSC/2024/0651 · service charges · Islington · decided 26 Mar 2025
The tribunal found the cost of replacing the windows and doors was recoverable through the service charge, reasonable to arrange, and the two late payment administration charges of £42 each reasonable, and it made an order preventing the landlord's tribunal costs being added to the service charge.
| Outcome | Payable as demanded |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Order made |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | One flat |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2023, 2024 |
| Items in dispute | administration charges, major works, repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £3,267.07 |
| 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
- years
service charges for the years 2023/2024 and 2024/2025
- outcome
In our judgment, the lease provides for the cost of the replacement windows and doors to be recovered through the service charge.
- total demanded
The total sum in dispute is £3,267.07.
- s20c
The applications under section 20C and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 are granted
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.