Phase 2, King Edwards Wharf, Sheepcote Street, Birmingham, B16 8AT

BIR/00CN/LDC/2019/0019 · dispensation from consultation · Birmingham · decided 6 Feb 2020

figures not yet checked

The tribunal dispensed with the section 20 consultation for the Core 13A remedial works, approved the Core 13A works and the additional Core 14 works as reasonably incurred, and refused the proposed £12,000 contingency.

Outcome	Reduced
Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case)	Not applied for
Section 20 consultation	Dispensation granted
Who applied	RTM company
Freeholder / landlord	May 2019 (1) Wallace Estates Limited
Management company	Kew Phase Two RTM Company Limited
Managing agent	none named
Building	A block, 126 flats
Service charge years in dispute	not stated
Items in dispute	major works
Items disallowed or reduced	major works
Total demanded	£128,896.06
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; the two readings disagreed on something, so these figures haven't been checked yet and are left out of the statistics. Compare with the original.

What the decision says

flats n: Phase 2 has 126 apartments and is accessed from Browning Street.
management company: Kew Phase Two RTM Company
outcome: we do not allow the application in respect of this sum
items reduced: we do not allow the application in respect of this sum
total demanded: the sum for which the Applicant seeks the Tribunal's sanction is £128,896.06
s20: We agree that the consultation requirements for the Core 13A works 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.