3 & 3A The Quadrant, High Street, Epsom, KT17 4RH
CHI/43UC/LDC/2018/0092 · dispensation from consultation · Epsom and Ewell · decided 10 Jan 2019
The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent works to replace the defective flat roof, as no prejudice to the leaseholders was identified, while making no finding on whether the costs are reasonable or payable.
| 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 | Southern Provinces Property Co Ltd |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | major works |
| 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
- outcome
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the works to replace the flat roof serving the communal structure of the building.
- s20
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the works to replace the flat roof serving the communal structure of the building.
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.