76 Lexham Gardens, London, W8 5JB
LON/00AW/LDC/2022/0228 · dispensation from consultation · Kensington and Chelsea · decided 14 Feb 2023
The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent repairs to a chimney stack, as no leaseholder objected and prejudice was not shown.
| 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 | Hepburn Resources Limited |
| Management company | TLC Real Estate Services Limited |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | One flat, 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
converted to form five self-contained flats
- freeholder
Applicant : Hepburn Resources Limited
- management company
TLC Real Estate Services Limited
- outcome
The Tribunal grants the application for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
- s20
The Tribunal grants the application for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by 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.