Bridge Lofts, 3 Leicester Street, Walsall WS1 1PT
BIR/00CU/LDC/2019/0009 · dispensation from consultation · Walsall · decided 7 Nov 2019
The tribunal granted the RTM company dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for urgent roof and stonework repairs at the building, finding the tenants would not be prejudiced.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Dispensation granted |
| Who applied | RTM company |
| Freeholder / landlord | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | Bridge Lofts RTM Company Limited |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 4 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
- management company
Applicant : Bridge Lofts RTM Company Limited
- outcome
the Tribunal finds the tenants would not be prejudiced by granting dispensation of the consultation requirements in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and it would be reasonable to dispense with them.
- s20
the Tribunal finds the tenants would not be prejudiced by granting dispensation of the consultation requirements in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and it would be reasonable to dispense with them.
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.