Raised Ground floor flat, 7 Belsize Avenue, London, NW3 4BL
LON/00AG/LSC/2024/0752 · service charges · Camden · decided 25 Jul 2025
The tribunal found that the 2024 demands for major works were invalid because the lease mechanism was not followed, and that the 2025 advance demand did not comply with section 21B, though its effect is only suspensory; no costs order was made and any section 20C submissions are to be made in writing.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not clear |
| 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 | not stated |
| Items in dispute | major works |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £31,248 |
| 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
The demands were not in the form of advance payments as defined under the lease
- outcome
We therefore reluctantly conclude that the 2025 advance demand did not comply with s.21B although the effect of this is suspensory only.
- total demanded
This amounted to £31248 plus interests and costs.
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.