68 Bramber Road, London W14 9PB
LON/00AN/LDC/2019/0053 · dispensation from consultation · Hammersmith and Fulham · decided 14 May 2019
The tribunal found the s.20 consultation requirements for the major works had been complied with, and in the alternative would have granted dispensation, with the leaseholders protected from some costs and one respondent ordered to repay the hearing fee.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Order made |
| Section 20 consultation | Dispensation granted |
| Who applied | Landlord or management company |
| Freeholder / landlord | Northumberland & Durham Property Trust Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 2 flats |
| 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 | the respondent [name] Limited to reimburse the applicant the hearing fee of £200 |
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
There are only two flats at the property.
- freeholder
the Applicant, Northumberland & Durham Property Trust Limited, sought dispensation
- outcome
Accordingly we would grant dispensation.
- s20c
The Tribunal makes an order under s20C of the Act
- s20
Accordingly we would grant dispensation.
- costs
The Tribunal orders [name] to reimburse the hearing fee of £200
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.