Shalbourne House, 17 Grand Avenue, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH6 3SY
· other · Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole · decided 26 Apr 2023
The tribunal granted the RTM company dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs at Shalbourne House, subject to a competitive tender with the lowest quotation accepted, while 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 | RTM company |
| Freeholder / landlord | not a company, or not stated |
| Management company | Shalbourne House RTM Company Limited |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 9 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | major works |
| 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
Block of 9 converted flats.
- management company
Applicant : Shalbourne House RTM Company Limited
- outcome
The Tribunal therefore grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of roof repairs
- s20
The Tribunal therefore grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of roof repairs
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.