9-23 (odd) Highgrove Court, Carlton. Barnsley S71 3RW
MAN/00CC/LUS/2021/0001 · LUS · Barnsley · decided 15 Nov 2022
figures not yet checkedThe Tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction to hear the RTM company's application because the second claim notice was invalid, as the earlier notice remained in force when it was served.
| Outcome | Dismissed or struck out |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | RTM company |
| Freeholder / landlord | Residential Freeholds Limited |
| Management company | Highgrove Court RTM Company Limited |
| Managing agent | Moreland Property Limited |
| Building | A block |
| 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; the two readings disagreed on something, so these figures haven't been checked yet and are left out of the statistics. Compare with the original.
What the decision says
- freeholder
Residential Freeholds Limited (by its agent
- management company
Highgrove Court RTM Company Limited
- agent
Residential Freeholds Limited (by its agent Moreland Property Limited)
- outcome
the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the application
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.