Flat 9, 13-15 Chesham Street, London SW1X 8ND
LON/00AW/LBC/2023/0068 · breach of lease · Kensington and Chelsea · decided 12 Jun 2024
The tribunal found that the respondent lessees breached lease clauses 2(11) and 2(15) by allowing their subtenant to run holiday lets causing nuisance, but not clause 2(14)(b), and that the £570 administration fee for consent to sublet is not payable by the respondents.
| 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 | Urang Property Management |
| Building | One flat, 13 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | other |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £570 |
| 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 purpose built block of 13 flats
- agent
Urang Property Management (‘Urang’) acting for and on behalf of the Applicant and the Landlord
- outcome
The tribunal finds the applicant has proved the respondents have breached clauses 2(11) and 2(15) of the lease.
- total demanded
the respondents are not liable to pay the £570 fee
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.