Cholesbury By The Wood, Carpenders Park, Watford Hertfordshire WD19 5AN
CAM/26UJ/LDC/2022/0006 · dispensation from consultation · Three Rivers · decided 1 Apr 2022
The tribunal granted the applicant management company dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof repair works at the block, without deciding whether the costs are reasonable or payable.
| 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 | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | Dunsmore Flats Limited |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 21 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
accommodates 21 residential units
- freeholder
The landlord is said to be Kebbell Development Limited.
- management company
The Applicant is the management company under the sample lease provided.
- outcome
to dispense with all the consultation requirements in relation to the works to repair the roof of the Property.
- s20
to dispense with all the consultation requirements in relation to the works to repair the roof of the Property.
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.