The Residence, Saunderton Estate, High Wycombe Bucks HP14 4EA
CAM/11UF/LDC/2022/0029 · dispensation from consultation · Buckinghamshire · decided 15 Dec 2022
The tribunal retrospectively dispensed with all statutory consultation requirements for the urgent works to replace damaged drainage pipework, without deciding whether the works or the charges 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 | Maplefox Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | MCR National Homes Limited |
| Building | An estate, 7 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
converted into fifty-seven apartments on an eight-acre site
- freeholder
the applicant freeholder, Maplefox Limited
- agent
Representative MCR National Homes Limited
- outcome
to dispense retrospectively with all consultation requirements in respect of qualifying works to replace damaged pipework
- s20
to dispense retrospectively with all consultation requirements in respect of qualifying works to replace damaged pipework
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.