Rose Hill House, Clarence Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1HB
CHI/29UQ/LDC/2022/0104 · dispensation from consultation · Tunbridge Wells · decided 23 Dec 2022
The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the Section 20 consultation requirements for urgent roof repair works to prevent leaks at Rose Hill House, making no finding on 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 | Clarence House (Tunbridge Wells) Management Ltd |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 9 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
- flats n
the Property comprises a converted building of 9 flats
- management company
Applicant : [name] House ([name]) Management Ltd
- outcome
The Applicant is granted dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements
- s20
The Tribunal consequently finds that it is reasonable to dispense with all of the formal consultation requirements in respect of the major works to the building.
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.