398A High Street, Lewisham, London, SE13 6LJ
LON/00AZ/LBC/2022/0041 · breach of lease · Lewisham · decided 6 Nov 2022
The Tribunal determined that the leaseholders breached clause 2(15) by subletting part of the flat, and clause 3(c) by making alterations under paragraph 3 and using the flat as a house in multiple occupation under paragraph 4 of the First Schedule of the lease, and rejected their claim that the landlord had consented or agreed to compensation.
| 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 | insurance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | insurance |
| Total demanded | not stated as one figure |
| 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. Compare with the original.
What the decision says
- outcome
The Tribunal determines that there has been a breach of clause 2(15) and clause 3(c) (by reason of breach of para. 3 and para. 4 of the First Schedule) of the lease pursuant to S. 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
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.