285 Alice Street, South Shields, Tyne & Wear NE33 5PJ
MAN/00CL/LBC/2021/0008 · breach of lease · South Tyneside · decided 9 Aug 2022
The Tribunal determined under section 168(4) of the 2002 Act that the tenant's occupier caused nuisance and that the respondent breached lease covenants by permitting it, and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Landlord or management company |
| 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 | repairs and maintenance |
| 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 to pay the applicant's costs in the sum set out in the Schedule of Costs |
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
- outcome
The Application is granted. The Tribunal determines pursuant to section 168(4) of the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that breaches of a covenant or condition in the lease have occurred
- costs
The Tribunal orders the Respondent to pay the costs of the Applicant in the sum ordered in paragraph 46 of this decision
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.