First Floor Flat, 89 St Luke's Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH3 7LS
CHI/00HN/LBC/2019/0040 · breach of lease · Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole · decided 4 Nov 2020
figures not yet checkedThe Tribunal found only two of nineteen alleged breaches of covenant proved, namely missing floor carpets (since remedied) and removal of a parking bollard, and dismissed the rest; a section 20C order was made and the costs question was deferred for written submissions.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Order made |
| 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, 2 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | insurance, major works, repairs and maintenance, utilities |
| 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
- outcome
Of the nineteen allegations of breach of covenant made by the Applicant the Tribunal finds only two to have been established
- s20c
the Tribunal does exercise its discretion to make an order under section 20C of the Act.
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.