The Tower, One St George Wharf, London, SW8 2DU
LON/00AY/LDC/2024/0161 · dispensation from consultation · Lambeth · decided 1 Oct 2024
The tribunal granted unconditional dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for an urgent software upgrade to the building management system, leaving leaseholders' rights to challenge the costs under sections 19 and 27A unaffected.
| 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 | Berkeley Seventy-Seven Ltd |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Residential Management Group Ltd |
| Building | A block, 212 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | not stated |
| Items in dispute | other |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £81,574.72 |
| 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
houses 212 luxury apartments
- freeholder
the freeholder, Berkeley Seventy-Seven Ltd dated 2 May 2024
- agent
Residential Management Group Ltd, who replaced Randell and Ritter as agents
- outcome
unconditional dispensation should be granted from the consultation requirements
- total demanded
the total cost of the works inclusive of VAT is £ 81574.72
- s20
unconditional dispensation should be granted from the consultation requirements
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.