Farnholme, Moorland Road, Poulton-Le-Fylde FY6 7ER
MAN/30UF/LDC/2022/0046 · dispensation from consultation · Wyre · decided 2 May 2023
The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for urgent electrical safety rewiring works at Farnholme, as the safety urgency outweighed any prejudice to leaseholders.
| 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 | Farnholme Management Company Limited |
| Management company | Farnholme Management Company Limited |
| Managing agent | Homestead Consultancy Services Limited |
| Building | A block, 12 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | insurance, 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
comprises 12 flats under a pitched roof
- freeholder
Applicant : Farnholme Management Company Limited
- agent
Representative : Homestead Consultancy Services Limited
- outcome
The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the work specified in the application.
- s20
The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the work specified in the 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.