Monthall & Herlebeck Rise, Herlebeck Rise, Lancaster, LA1 3HU
MAN/30UH/LDC/2024/0030 · dispensation from consultation · Lancaster · decided 8 Jan 2025
The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs above flat 11, without conditions, but made no finding on whether the charges 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 | Places for People Homes Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Residential Management Group Ltd |
| Building | An estate, 30 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | repairs and maintenance |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £6,754.50 |
| 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
making a total of 30 units
- freeholder
The Applicant is the freeholder and landlord for Monthall & Herlebeck Rise
- agent
Residential Management Group Ltd (RMG) is the authorised managing agent.
- outcome
The Tribunal grants this application to dispense with the consultation requirements
- total demanded
at a cost of £6,754.5 (£5,628.54 plus VAT)
- s20
The Tribunal grants this application to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20
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.