Dukes Lodge, 10-12 Eastbury Avenue, Northwood HA6 3NA
CAM/38UJ/LDC/2025/0673 · dispensation from consultation · Three Rivers · decided 13 Nov 2025
The Tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for urgent asbestos ceiling removal works, excluding the new ceiling and air test, and the works' cost remains open to challenge.
| 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 | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Townsends Ltd |
| Building | An estate, 12 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £4,200 |
| Total found payable | not stated as one figure |
| Fees or costs ordered | the applicant to meet its own costs of the application |
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
12No. flats in all.
- freeholder
Landlord : Dukes Lodge Ltd
- agent
Representative : Townsends Ltd (Agent)
- outcome
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the requirements on the applicant
- total demanded
The cost of the work was £4200 including VAT.
- s20
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the requirements on the applicant
- costs
The applicant will meet all of its costs arising from the making and determination of this application.
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.