Drake Cottage, 15 Teetotal Street, St Ives, Cornwall TR26 1PH
CHI/00HE/LBC/2022/0014 · breach of lease · Cornwall · decided 19 Nov 2022
The Tribunal found a breach of clause 3.16 of the lease in respect of demolition of a wall between the lounge and kitchen, installation of a steel I beam and removal of a timber beam, but no breach of clause 3.25(c), and refused the landlord's costs application while ordering the respondents to pay the application and hearing fees of £300.
| 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 | none stated |
| Total demanded | not stated as one figure |
| Total found payable | not stated as one figure |
| Fees or costs ordered | the respondents to reimburse the applicant application and hearing fee totalling £300.00 |
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 the Applicant has demonstrated that there has been a breach of clause 3.16 of the lease pursuant to Section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
- costs
The Respondents shall reimburse the Applicant the application and hearing fee totalling £300.00 within 14 days of the date 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.