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

← Decisions near WC1E 7LR

Canary Riverside Estate, London E14

LON/00BG/LDC/2019/0167 · dispensation from consultation · Camden · decided 31 Jan 2020

No plain-English summary for this decision yet. See the original.

OutcomeOther decision
Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case)Not applied for
Section 20 consultationDispensation granted
Who appliedOther
Freeholder / landlordOctagon Overseas Limited
Management companyCanary Riverside Estate Management Limited
Managing agentCanary Riverside Estate Management Limited
BuildingAn estate, 325 flats
Service charge years in disputenot stated
Items in disputerepairs and maintenance
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
comprising 325 flats, a hotel, health club and commercial units
freeholder
Octagon Overseas Limited (“Octagon”) is the freehold owner of the Estate
management company
[name] Estate Management Limited (“CREM”) is the leasehold owner of a large part of the Estate
outcome
The tribunal grants retrospective dispensation from the whole of the consultation requirements for qualifying works under section 20ZA
s20
The tribunal grants retrospective dispensation from the whole of the consultation requirements for qualifying works under section 20ZA

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.