Maylams Quay, Medway Wharf Road, Tonbridge, Kent TN9 1RB
CHI/29UP/LDC/2021/0069 · dispensation from consultation · Tonbridge and Malling · decided 19 Aug 2021
The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for emergency works to the roof and box gutters at Maylams Quay, 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 | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | Maylams Quay Management Limited |
| Managing agent | Honey Dell Properties 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
- management company
Applicant : Maylams Quay Management Limited
- agent
Representative : Honey Dell Properties Limited
- outcome
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of emergency works to the roof and box gutters
- s20
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of emergency works to the roof and box gutters
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.