40 - 43 Onslow Gardens, London, SW7 3PY
LON/00AW/LDC/2023/0008 · dispensation from consultation · Kensington and Chelsea · decided 20 Jun 2023
The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for lift engineer attendance during asbestos encapsulation works to the lift shaft at 40-43 Onslow Gardens, while leaving reasonableness and payability open for a later challenge.
| 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 | The Wellcome Trust Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Savills(UK) Ltd |
| Building | A block |
| 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
- agent
Representative : [name](UK) Ltd ([name])
- outcome
The Tribunal determines to exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements contained in Schedule 4 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.
- s20
The Tribunal determines to exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements contained in Schedule 4 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.
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.