Flat 5, 49 Maresfield Gardens, NW3 STE
LON/00BK/LBC/2022/0028 · breach of lease · Camden · decided 24 Oct 2022
The tribunal found that the leaseholders of Flat 5 had not breached clause 3(j) of their lease on noise and floor covering, because there was insufficient evidence of a breach.
| 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 | Red Carpet Estates |
| Building | One flat, 9 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
a converted Victorian house comprising 9 flats in total
- agent
The Applicant employs a managing agent, Red Carpet Estates, to manage the property.
- outcome
The Tribunal determines that there has not been a breach of clause 3 j 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.