Emergency Repairs Can Bypass Consultation Requirements

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/45UD/LDC/2024/0005

Property

:

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

[COMPANY]

:

[COMPANY]

Respondents

:

[redacted]

:

Type of Application

:

To dispense with the requirement to consult [NAME] about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Member

:

[NAME]

Date and Venue of Hearing

:

Determination on papers

Date of Decision

:

16 April 2024

DECISION

2 The Application

1. The Applicant seeks retrospective dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act. The application was received on 9 January 2024.

2. The property is described as a residential block comprising six flats over three storeys, constructed within the last 15-20 years.

3. The Applicant states that on the 30 November 2023 they were made aware of a number of dislodged roof tiles. Additionally, gutters were found to be blocked. As a consequence, rainwater ingress was affecting a number of properties resulting in internal dampness and mould.

4. In accordance with prudent property management the Applicant instructed remedial works to the roof. The cost of the works was £1,703.27 plus VAT.

5. The Applicant states that the works were both necessary and urgent, and, accordingly, there was insufficient time to undertake statutory consultation.

6. The Applicant avers that they proceeded in a reasonable manner and that there was no prejudice to the [NAME] as a result of their actions

7. On 18 March 2024 the Tribunal directed that the application would be determined on the papers without a hearing unless a party objected in writing within 7 days. No objections were received.

8. The Directions stated that neither the question of reasonableness of the works, nor of the costs incurred, were included in the application, the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation.

9. The Tribunal required the Respondents to return a pro-forma to the Tribunal and to the Applicant by 5 April 2024 indicating whether they agreed or disagreed with the application. No completed forms have been received by the Tribunal. Furthermore, neither has the Applicant notified the Tribunal of any objections.

Determination

10. In the first instance the Tribunal reviewed the application and considered whether it remained suitable for determination on the papers.

11. The Tribunal finds that there is no substantive dispute on the facts and no objections to the application have been received from the [NAME]. The application solely concerns whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements.

Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the matter remains capable of being determined

3 fairly, justly and efficiently on the papers, consistent with the overriding objective of the Tribunal.

12. The 1985 Act provides [NAME] with safeguards in respect of the recovery of the landlord’s costs in connection with qualifying works. Section 19 ensures that the landlord can only recover those costs that are reasonably incurred on works that are carried out to a reasonable standard. Section 20 requires the landlord to consult with [NAME] in a prescribed manner about the qualifying works. If the landlord fails to do this, a leaseholder’s contribution is limited to £250, unless the Tribunal dispenses with the requirement to consult.

13. In this case the Tribunal’s decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the works under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act. The Tribunal is not making a determination on whether the costs of those works are reasonable or payable. If a leaseholder wishes to challenge the reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.

14. Section 20ZA does not elaborate on the circumstances in which it might be reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements. On the face of the wording, the Tribunal is given a broad discretion on whether to grant or refuse dispensation. The discretion, however, must be exercised in the context of the legal safeguards given to the Applicant under sections 19 and 20 of the 1985 Act. This was the conclusion of the Supreme Court in [COMPANY] v [NAME] [2013] UKSC 14 & 54 which decided that the Tribunal should focus on the issue of prejudice to the tenant in respect of the statutory safeguards.

15. Lord [APPELLANT] in Daejan said at paragraph 44 “Given that the purpose of the Requirements is to ensure that the tenants are protected from (i) paying for inappropriate works or (ii) paying more than would be appropriate, it seems to me that the issue on which the LVT should focus when entertaining an application by a landlord under s 20ZA(1) must be the extent, if any, to which the tenants were prejudiced in either respect by the failure of the landlord to comply with the Requirements”.

16. Thus, the correct approach to an application for dispensation is for the Tribunal to decide whether and if so to what extent the [NAME] would suffer relevant prejudice if unconditional dispensation was granted. The factual burden is on the [NAME] to identify any relevant prejudice which they claim they might have suffered. If the [NAME] show a creditable case for prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it, failing which it should, in the absence of good reason to the contrary, require the landlord to reduce the amount claimed as service charges to compensate the [NAME] fully for that prejudice.

4 17. The Tribunal now turns to the facts.

18. The Tribunal is satisfied that the works for which dispensation is sought, those being emergency roofing repairs to prevent water ingress, were necessary.

19. The Tribunal takes into account the fact that none of the [NAME] submitted any objection to the application. Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that no prejudice as a result of the failure to consult has either been demonstrated or asserted.

20. On the evidence before it the Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the [NAME] would suffer no relevant prejudice if dispensation from consultation was granted.

Decision

21. The Tribunal grants an order retrospectively dispensing with the consultation requirements under S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of remedial works to the roof as identified in the application.

22. Dispensation is granted on the condition that the Applicant provides a copy of this decision to all [NAME].

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.