LON/00BD/LSC/2025/0662
LON/00BD/LSC/2025/0662 · service charges · Richmond upon Thames · decided 7 Oct 2025
figures not yet checkedThe Tribunal decided that the landlord's interpretation of the lease service charge mechanism was correct, including its right to collect interim demands and reserve fund contributions, so the leaseholders' challenges failed.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Matthias Court Management Company (Richmond Upon Thames) Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | One flat, 33 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2025 |
| Items in dispute | other |
| 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
Each of the 33 flats within Matthias Court are held subject to the terms of a long lease agreement.
- freeholder
Matthias Court Management Company (Richmond Upon Thames) Limited
- years
the service charge period 1st January to 31st December 2025
- outcome
We consider that the Respondents’ interpretation of the lease provisions is the correct one.
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.