47 Nevern Square, Earls Court, London SW5 9PF
LON/00AW/LDC/2025/0831 · dispensation from consultation · Kensington and Chelsea · decided 5 Nov 2025
The tribunal granted retrospective dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for urgent ceiling repairs at the property, but made no decision 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 | 47 Nevern Square Ltd |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| 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 which is the subject of this application comprises five self-contained flats arranged over five storeys.
- freeholder
Applicant 47 Nevern Square Ltd
- outcome
The Tribunal determines that retrospective dispensation should be given from the consultation requirements in respect of the essential works
- s20
The Tribunal determines that retrospective dispensation should be given from the consultation requirements in respect of the essential works
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.