27 Essex Road, Maidstone, Kent ME15 7QL
CHI/29UH/LRM/2020/0004 · right to manage · Maidstone · decided 20 Apr 2021
The tribunal decided the RTM company was not entitled to acquire the right to manage because the premises were neither a self-contained building nor part of a building, so the application was dismissed.
| 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 | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 2 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | repairs and maintenance, utilities |
| 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 respondent not ordered to reimburse the applicant the £100 application fee |
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
- flats n
The Premises comprise a two- storey building containing two flats- 27A and 27B.
- outcome
The Tribunal determines that the Applicant was not entitled
- costs
The Respondent is not ordered to reimburse the Applicant with the £100 Tribunal application fee.
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.