Flats 1-50 Sutton Court, Wolverhampton, West Midlands WV4 6QW
BIR/00CW/LDC/2018/0007 · dispensation from consultation · Wolverhampton · decided 10 Jan 2019
The Tribunal refused the landlord's application to dispense with the section 20 consultation requirements for the roof replacement works at Sutton Court, so consultation must go ahead.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not applied for |
| Section 20 consultation | Dispensation refused |
| Who applied | Landlord or management company |
| Freeholder / landlord | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Castle Estates (Property Management Services) Limited |
| Building | A block, 49 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | major works |
| 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
so the Property comprises 49 apartments set out in a horseshoe shape around the parking area
- agent
Castle Estates (Property Management
- outcome
The Tribunal determines that it is not reasonable to dispense with the
- s20
The Tribunal determines that it is not reasonable to dispense with the
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.