Various Flats at Chelsea Mews, 45-47 New Wanstead, London, E11 2SA
LON/00BC/LSC/2023/0171 · service charges · Redbridge · decided 28 Mar 2024
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal found that the 2022 garden revitalisation works should have been consulted on under section 20, and although it granted dispensation on condition of credit, it found the £13,380 charged for those works was not reasonably incurred and must be credited to leaseholders' service charge accounts.
| Outcome | Not payable |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not clear |
| Section 20 consultation | Dispensation granted |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | An estate, 18 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2022 |
| Items in dispute | cleaning and grounds |
| Items disallowed or reduced | cleaning and grounds |
| Total demanded | £13,380 |
| 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
limited to recovering £250 from each of the 18 flats
- years
in respect of the service charge year to September 2022
- outcome
the sum of £13,380 charged for the work described in this decision and charged in the service charge for 2022 was not reasonably incurred
- items reduced
the sum of £13,380 charged for the work described in this decision and charged in the service charge for 2022 was not reasonably incurred
- total demanded
the sum of £13,380 charged for the work described in this decision
- s20
The Tribunal allows the Respondent’s application for dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20 of the 1985 Act
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.