36 Dunsmure Road, London N16 5PW
LON/00AM/LCP/2019/0011 · LCP · Hackney · decided 9 Mar 2020
The tribunal decided the RTM company was not entitled to acquire the right to manage because a second claim notice was given while the first remained in force, and reduced the landlord's section 88 costs payable by the applicant to £1,245.84.
| 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 | Assethold Limited |
| Management company | 36 Dunsmure Road RTM Company Limited |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block · 2 decisions about this building |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | legal and professional fees |
| Items disallowed or reduced | legal and professional fees |
| Total demanded | not stated as one figure |
| Total found payable | £1,245.84 |
| Fees or costs ordered | the applicant to pay the respondent section 88 costs of £1,245.84 |
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 : Assethold Limited
- management company
The Applicant is 36 Dunsmure Road RTM Company Limited
- outcome
The Applicant was not entitled on the relevant date to acquire the right to manage in respect of the Property.
- total payable
The amount of the section 88 costs payable by the Applicant is reduced to £1,245.84
- costs
The amount of the section 88 costs payable by the Applicant is reduced to £1,245.84
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.