Service Charge Check
part of Rent Rise Check: rent increases, repayment orders and licensing for renters

← Decisions near GL52 2BQ

Wyddrington House, 55 Pittville Lawn, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL52 2BQ

CHI/23UB/LDC/2021/0054 · dispensation from consultation · Cheltenham · decided 31 Aug 2021

The tribunal granted the landlord retrospective dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements for fire-proofing works to doors, cupboards, the loft hatch and loft space, finding no relevant prejudice to the leaseholder, and made no finding on whether the costs are reasonable or payable.

OutcomeOther decision
Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case)Not applied for
Section 20 consultationDispensation granted
Who appliedLandlord or management company
Freeholder / landlordIdris Davis Limited
Management companynone named
Managing agentnone named
BuildingA block
Service charge years in disputenot stated
Items in disputeother
Items disallowed or reducednone stated
Total demandednot stated as one figure
Total found payablenot stated as one figure
Fees or costs orderednone 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
providing eight privately owned apartments
outcome
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
s20
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of fire proofing the doors, cupboards, loft hatch and loft space

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.