23 Hammelton Road Bromley Kent BR1 3PZ
LON/00AF/LRM/2019/0018 · right to manage · Bromley · decided 27 Nov 2019
The tribunal found the RTM company was entitled to acquire the right to manage the building, despite the late production of the notice of invitation to the flat 2 leaseholder, and it made a costs direction against the applicant for unreasonable conduct.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | RTM company |
| Freeholder / landlord | Assthold Limited |
| 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 | the applicant reimburse the respondent's costs incurred after the hearing preparation, under rule 13 unreasonable conduc |
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
- freeholder
Respondent : Assthold Limited
- outcome
the Applicant was on the relevant date entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises pursuant to section 84(5)(a) of the Act
- costs
we consider that the claim should only relate to the preparation for the hearing today and the attendance at same as costs
The passages each figure was read from, verbatim. People's names are replaced with [name].
The original
Later rulings on the same case (costs, section 20C, permission to appeal): 22 May 2020.
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.