Roding Heights, 5 Station Way, Buckhurst Hill, IG9 6FA
CAM/22UH/LDC/2025/0659 · dispensation from consultation · Epping Forest · decided 28 Nov 2025
The Tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof-related works to address water ingress affecting top floor apartments at Roding Heights; this does not decide whether the costs are reasonable or payable.
| Outcome | Other decision |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Not clear |
| Section 20 consultation | Dispensation granted |
| Who applied | Landlord or management company |
| Freeholder / landlord | Roding heights Management Company Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Sapphire Property Management |
| Building | A block, 2 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
- freeholder
Applicant |: |Roding heights Management Company Limited
- agent
Representative |: |Sapphire Property Management
- outcome
The Tribunal determines under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of water ingress
- s20
I am satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements in relation to the relevant works.
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.