107 Finborough Road, London SW10 9DU
LON/00AW/LDC/2020/0040 · dispensation from consultation · Kensington and Chelsea · decided 21 May 2020
The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the s.20 consultation requirements for urgent repairs to the front parapet of the building, leaving the reasonableness and payability of the costs to be decided later.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Dispensation granted |
| Who applied | Landlord or management company |
| Freeholder / landlord | Holland Park Investments Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Red Carpet Estates |
| Building | A block, 5 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | repairs and maintenance |
| 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
The Property contains five flats and is over five storeys
- freeholder
Applicant : Holland Park Investments Limited
- agent
Representative : Red Carpet Estates
- outcome
I determine that dispensation should be granted from the consultation requirements under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
- s20
I determine that dispensation should be granted from the consultation requirements under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
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.