4 North Road, Edmonton, London N9 7QY
LON/00AK/LDC/2019/0084 · dispensation from consultation · Enfield · decided 3 Jul 2019
The tribunal granted retrospective dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent rear fence works costing £1770.00 ex VAT, while making no finding on liability or reasonableness of the cost.
| 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 | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Together Property Management |
| Building | One flat, 2 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
containing 2 leasehold flats on the ground and first floors
- agent
through its Managing Agents, Together Property Management
- outcome
the Tribunal grants the Application made in this case, and dispenses with the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
- s20
the Tribunal grants the Application made in this case, and dispenses with the consultation requirements of section 20 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.