LON/00BB/LSC/2025/0936
LON/00BB/LSC/2025/0936 · service charges · Newham · decided 26 Feb 2026
The tribunal found that replacing and upgrading the roof, at a figure of £52,272, would be payable if the costs were incurred, although it noted the cost report is nearly three years old, and it refused a section 20C order while making a section 5A order preventing the landlord's hearing costs being charged as an administration charge.
| 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 | Third Actel Management Limited |
| Management company | Third Actel Management Limited |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 13 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2025 |
| Items in dispute | major works |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £52,272 |
| Total found payable | £52,272 |
| 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
containing 13 flats
- freeholder
Third Actel Management Limited
- years
claimed in the 2025 service charge
- outcome
that the sum of £52,272 for replacement and upgrading the roof would
- total demanded
associated costs of approximately £52,272
- total payable
that the sum of £52,272 for replacement and upgrading the roof would
- s20c
The Tribunal makes no 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.