Leasehold decisions matching "Lock House, Tavern Quay, Rope Street, London, SE16 7EX"
Based on 2 decisions whose published address matches "Lock House, Tavern Quay, Rope Street, London, SE16 7EX".
What the tribunal decided here
2 decisions: service charges 1, dispensation from consultation 1. 1 is a service charge case, 1 with a readable outcome.
Only 1 decision with a readable outcome. That is too few to show a pattern.
Dispensation applications (landlord-driven, never in the share above): 1, granted 1, refused 0.
Past decisions are not a prediction. Each tribunal decides on the evidence in front of it.
How these figures are counted
"Readable outcome" means the decision states one of: payable as demanded, reduced, substantially reduced (more than a third off, as the decision's own figures show), not payable, or dismissed. Withdrawn and procedural decisions, dispensation, manager, right-to-manage and breach-of-lease cases are listed but not counted in that share. A section 20C order is counted only where the decision says it was made or refused; "not clear" means it was asked for but not decided in the document. Figures are as the decisions state them; nothing is added up. Decisions marked "figures not yet checked" (0 here: the regex and model readings disagreed on the outcome, the section 20C result or a total) are listed but left out of the counts.
| Building | Case | Outcome | Managing agent | Freeholder / landlord | Management company | Items in dispute | Decided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 Lock House, Tavern Quay, Rope Street, London, SE16 7EX | service charges | Payable as demanded | Canonbury Management | Tavern Quay Developments LLP | administration charges, cleaning and grounds, insurance, legal and professional fees, other, repairs and maintenance | 10 May 2021 | |
| Lock House, Tavern Quay, Rope Street, London, SE16 7EX | dispensation from consultation | Dispensation granted | Canonbury Management Ltd | Tavern Quay RTM Company Ltd | insurance, repairs and maintenance | 29 May 2020 |
Individual freeholders and leaseholders are never named here; companies are, as the decision names them.
Challenging a service charge? The rules and the nearest decisions.