The Grand, The Leas, Folkstone, CT20 2LR
CHI/29UL/LDC/2020/0071 · dispensation from consultation · Folkestone and Hythe · decided 11 Jan 2021
The Tribunal dispensed with the statutory consultation requirements for the second and third phases of fire enforcement works at The Grand, Folkestone, because the works are urgent and the lessees suffered no real prejudice.
| 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 | Hallam Estates Ltd |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block |
| 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
- freeholder
(a) Hallam Estates Ltd, as landlord.
- outcome
the Tribunal determines that the requirements of Pt.2 of Sch.4 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2013 (“the Regulations”) should be dispensed with in relation to the fire enforcement works
- s20
the Tribunal determines that the requirements of Pt.2 of Sch.4 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2013 (“the Regulations”) should be dispensed with
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.