River Court, Sheerwater, Woking, Surrey, GU21 5FT
CHI/43UM/LSC/2023/0095 · service charges · Woking · decided 2 Oct 2024
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal decided the respondent was not the freeholder and not entitled to levy service charges, so none of the sums demanded were payable, and ordered the respondent to repay the £300 fees.
| Outcome | Not payable |
|---|---|
| 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 | A block |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | not stated |
| 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 | respondent to reimburse the applicants application and hearing fee of £300 |
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
- freeholder
remained the registered proprietor of the freehold estate
- outcome
the Tribunal determines that none of the sums are payable
- costs
We do order the Respondent to reimburse the Applicants the application and hearing fee of £300.
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.