Chaucer Court, Richmond Crescent, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8JA
HAV/43UC/LDC/2025/0755 · dispensation from consultation · Epsom and Ewell · decided 20 Jan 2026
The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent works to repair roof leaks into Flat 7 at Chaucer Court, as no leaseholder objections were received and no prejudice was found.
| 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 | West Park CDT Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | HES Estate Management Limited |
| Building | A block, 8 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
comprising eight flats over three floors
- agent
Representative : HES Estate Management 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.