40 AND 40A MICKLEGATE, YORK YO1 6LF
MAN/00FF/LRM/2023/0007 · right to manage · York · decided 19 Apr 2024
The tribunal dismissed the right to manage application because the commercial part of the building exceeds 25% of the internal floor area, so the RTM company was not entitled to acquire the right to manage.
| 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 | 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 | 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
- flats n
Above the Commercial unit are three floors of residential units with two flats on each floor.
- outcome
A. The Application is dismissed. Under s.84(3) of the Act, the Tribunal determines that on the relevant date the Applicant company was not entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises specified in the claim notice.
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.