24-26A Ewart Grove, London, N22 5NX
LON/00AP/LDC/2023/0292 · dispensation from consultation · Haringey · decided 9 Apr 2024
The tribunal granted the landlord retrospective dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for urgent roof and chimney stack works at the block, leaving leaseholders free to challenge the cost under section 27A.
| 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 | Marshlease Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 4 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 is a purpose built 2 storey building which contains 4 flats.
- outcome
The tribunal determines that an order dispensing with the consultation provisions under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, is appropriate in this case, and makes such order.
- s20
The tribunal determines that an order dispensing with the consultation provisions under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, is appropriate in this case, and makes such order.
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.