57 Harrington Gardens, London, SW7 4JZ
LON/00AW/LDC/2023/0006 · dispensation from consultation · Kensington and Chelsea · decided 28 Mar 2023
The tribunal refused the landlord's application to dispense with the section 20 consultation requirements for roof and gutter works at the building, finding the leaseholders were prejudiced because there was no evidence of the likely cost of the works.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Consultation failure found |
| Who applied | Landlord or management company |
| Freeholder / landlord | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | 57 Harrington Gardens Ltd |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | One flat, 7 flats · 2 decisions about this building |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2022 |
| Items in dispute | repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £3,348 |
| 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 Victorian building containing seven flats.
- management company
This is an application by the Applicant management company under section
- outcome
The application for dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is refused.
- total demanded
relevant works in the total sum of £3,348.00
- s20
from the landlord’s failure to comply with the consultation requirements
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.