Bruges Place, Camden, London, NW1 0FT
LON/00AG/LDC/2025/0947 · dispensation from consultation · Camden · decided 5 Feb 2026
The tribunal granted the landlord unconditional dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent replacement of the electronic gates at Bruges Place, as no leaseholder objected and no prejudice was shown.
| 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 | Bruges Place Investments Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | none named |
| Building | A block, 51 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | other |
| 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 Premises are a purpose built block comprising 51 flats.
- freeholder
3. The Applicant, Bruges Place Investments Limited, is the Landlord.
- outcome
The Tribunal grants unconditional dispensation pursuant to s.20ZA in respect of replacing the electronic gates at the Premises (the “Works”).
- s20
The Tribunal grants unconditional dispensation pursuant to s.20ZA in respect the Works required at the Premises, which were carried out by Essex Artisan Limited, costing £20,001.49 including VAT.
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.