93 Napier Road, Kent ME7 4HH
CHI/00LC/LDC/2021/0055 · dispensation from consultation · Medway · decided 20 Jul 2021
The tribunal granted the landlord retrospective dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs already carried out at the building, without deciding 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 | Southern Land Securities Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Together Property Management |
| Building | A block, 3 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
consisting of three self-contained flats
- freeholder
Applicant : Southern Land Securities Limited
- agent
Representative : Together Property Management
- outcome
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the repairs to the roof already carried out.
- s20
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the repairs to the roof already carried out.
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.