Mount Ephraim Court, Tunbridge Wells, TN4 8DH
CHI/29UQ/LDC/2021/0021 · dispensation from consultation · Tunbridge Wells · decided 26 Mar 2021
The tribunal granted the applicant dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof, gutter and brickwork repairs at Mount Ephraim Court, subject to the applicant serving the decision on leaseholders.
| 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 | Mount Ephraim Court Limited |
| Management company | Mount Ephraim Court Limited |
| Managing agent | Alexandre Boyes Property Management Company |
| Building | A block, 16 flats |
| 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 : Mount Ephraim Court Limited
- agent
[name] of Alexandre Boyes Property Management Company
- outcome
dispenses with the consultation requirements in respect of the urgent works to the roof, gutters and brickwork
- s20
The Tribunal, therefore, dispenses with the consultation requirements in respect of the urgent works to the roof, gutters and brickwork.
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.