8 Elms West, Ashbrooke, Sunderland SR2 7BY
MAN/00CM/LDC/2024/0022 · dispensation from consultation · Sunderland · decided 7 May 2025
The tribunal refused the landlord's application for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for roof repair works, because the works were inadequately described and no reason for urgency was shown.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Dispensation refused |
| Who applied | Landlord or management company |
| Freeholder / landlord | 8 Elms West Management Company Limited |
| Management company | Elms West Management Company Limited |
| Managing agent | Potts Gray Management Company Limited |
| Building | A block, 5 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2024 |
| Items in dispute | repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £4,200 |
| 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
This will be apportioned between the 5 apartments as per your service charge contribution percentage.
- freeholder
Applicant : 8 Elms West Management Company Limited
- agent
Representative : [name] Gray Management Company Limited
- outcome
The Application is refused.
- total demanded
I can confirm the cost of the required works are £4200 inclusive of VAT.
- s20
dispensation from consultation for the works as detailed in the application be refused
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.