VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Costs for RTM Company

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal decided that an a company must pay certain costs including an application fee and additional costs as specified by the Act.

⚖️ Legal holding

An a company must pay the application fee and costs as determined by the Tribunal under s.88(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

Topics

RTM Companycosts determination

Provisions

s.88(4) Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ruled on the costs to be paid by an a company under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined that an RTM Company must pay an application fee of £100 and additional costs of £1,303.92 under s.88(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AH/LCP/2019/0012 Property : 58 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COUNSEL] Solicitors Respondent : [redacted] :

Type of application : Application to determine the costs to be paid by an [COMPANY] under s.88(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Tribunal members : Judge Carr Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 16th December 2019

DECISION

2 Decisions of the Tribunal (1) The Tribunal determines that the sum of £100 is payable by the Respondent in respect of the Application fee. (2) It also makes a formal determination that in addition the sum of £1,303.92 is payable in respect of costs. (3) The Tribunal makes the determinations as set out under the various headings in this Decision. The application 1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 88(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (The Act).

2. The Tribunal determined, in directions dated 15th October 2019, that the application was suitable for determination without an oral hearing. The parties were given an opportunity to request a hearing. No such request having been made the matter is to be determined on the basis of the documentation provided by the parties. The issues 3. The documentation provided by the Applicant and the correspondence between the Respondent and the Tribunal indicates that the sole issue in dispute is the application fee of £100.

4. The Applicant also asks the Tribunal for a formal decision confirming the sums subject to the application are payable in full by the Respondent.

The argument of the Applicant 5. The Applicant argues that in the light of all the circumstances – the ample notice of costs, the absence of any submissions from the Respondent and the delayed agreement of costs, that the Tribunal should make an order for reimbursement of the application fee paid to the Tribunal in the sum of £100.

6. The Tribunal notes that subsequent to the issue of the Application, the Respondent has indicated that it does not dispute the costs. The amount of the costs was notified to the Respondent on 17th September 2019. The Application was issued on 9th October 2019.

3 The Tribunal’s decision 7. The Tribunal determines that the application fee of £100 is payable by the Respondent. 8. The Tribunal also makes a formal determination that the costs of £1,303.92 are payable by the Respondent. Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision 9. The Tribunal accepts the arguments of the Applicant. 10. The figure of £1,303.92 has been agreed by the Respondent.

Name: Judge Carr Date: 16th December 2019

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

4

5

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tribunal accepted the applicant's arguments regarding the circumstances of the case.
  • The respondent had ample notice of the costs involved.
  • The respondent did not submit any arguments to dispute the costs.
  • The respondent delayed in agreeing to the costs.
  • The respondent agreed to the figure of £1,303.92 for costs.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision determined that the RTM Company must pay an application fee of £100 and additional costs of £1,303.92.

Who was involved?

The case involved an RTM Company and another party, likely a landlord or property owner.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, specifically section 88(4), which outlines the costs to be paid by an RTM Company.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, particularly section 88(4), was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the ample notice of costs and the absence of any submissions from the RTM Company.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For someone in a similar situation, the decision means that the RTM Company must comply with the cost requirements as outlined by the Act.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents provided by both parties were considered, including the notice of costs and the lack of response from the RTM Company.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days of receiving the written reasons for the decision.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal proceedings and cost determinations.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.