98 Hartfield Road Wimbledon London SW19 3TF
LON/00BA/LDC/2019/0169 · dispensation from consultation · Merton · decided 18 Nov 2019
The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for the urgent wall repair works costing £10,990, on condition that the landlord does not recover the costs of this application through the service charge.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not clear |
| Section 20 consultation | Dispensation granted |
| Who applied | Landlord or management company |
| Freeholder / landlord | Abbeytown Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 6 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £10,990 |
| Total found payable | not stated as one figure |
| Fees or costs ordered | applicant not to pass on costs of this application through the service charge |
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 in the 1970s into six flats
- freeholder
Applicant : Abbeytown Limited
- outcome
The Tribunal grants this application to dispense with the
- total demanded
The application for dispensation solely relates to the sum of £10,990
- s20
The Tribunal grants this application to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20
- costs
It is a condition of the dispensation that the Applicant does not pass
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.