Flats 1 to 8 Abbots Court, Thackeray Street, London W8 5ES
LON/00AW/LDC/2025/0860 · dispensation from consultation · Kensington and Chelsea · decided 26 Nov 2025
The Tribunal granted the landlord retrospective dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs at Abbots Court, while leaving leaseholders free to challenge the cost and reasonableness of the works later.
| 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 | Thackeray Estates Kensington and Chelsea Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | First Port Property Services Limited |
| Building | A block |
| 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
The Property is described as comprising ten long leasehold residential flats
- freeholder
Applicant : Thackeray Estates Kensington and Chelsea
- agent
First Port Property Services Limited, the Applicant’s managing agents
- outcome
The Tribunal grants the application for retrospective dispensation
- s20
The Tribunal grants the application for retrospective dispensation
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.