Flats 1 & 2 and Ground Floor Café, 189 High St, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 5AF
CHI/29UC/LDC/2021/0109 · dispensation from consultation · Canterbury · decided 20 Dec 2021
The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the remaining statutory consultation requirements for urgent upgrades to fire detection devices in a ground floor café, without deciding whether the costs are reasonable or payable.
| 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 | Alandy Investment Properties Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Azure Property Consultants Limited |
| Building | One flat |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | other |
| 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
- outcome
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the remaining consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of works to upgrade the fire detection devices in the ground floor café.
- s20
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the remaining consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of works to upgrade the fire detection devices in the ground floor café.
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.