First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Consultation Requirements

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/26UD/LDC/2022/0039 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : P: PAPERREMOTE Property : 25 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents :

[redacted] 2.Mr [NAME] and Mrs [NAME] (25b)

Type of [NAME] :

For dispensation from consultation requirements - Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Wayte Date of decision : 28 February 2023

DECISION Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote determination on the papers which the parties are taken to have consented to, as explained below. The form of determination was P:PAPERREMOTE. A hearing was not held because it was not necessary; all issues could be determined on paper. The documents I was referred to are in the bundle of 35 pages prepared by the Applicant. I have noted the contents and my decision is below.

2 The tribunal’s decision The tribunal determines under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to dispense with all the consultation requirements in relation to the works described in the [NAME] form, namely works to re-render an external wall to the property, following reports that the defective render was causing water penetration into the neighbouring property. The [NAME]

1. The Applicant applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of qualifying works to re-render an external wall, following complaints of water penetration into a neighbouring property.

2. The relevant contributions of the Respondents through the service charge towards the costs of these works would potentially be limited to a fixed sum unless the statutory consultation requirements, prescribed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the “1985 Act”) and the Service Charges (Consultation etc) (England) Regulations 2003: (i) were complied with; or (ii) are dispensed with by the tribunal.

3. The Applicant seeks a determination from the tribunal, under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act, to dispense with the consultation requirements. The tribunal has jurisdiction to grant such dispensation if satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.

4. In this [NAME], the only issue for the tribunal is whether it is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs of the relevant works will be reasonable or payable, or what proportion is payable. The property, the parties and the leases 5. The Applicant is the relevant landlord of the Property, which is described in the [NAME] form as an end of terrace house constructed circa 1870 on two storeys which has been converted into two flats. The exterior has a fully rendered surface finished in white masonry paint.

6. The lease of the ground floor flat was produced and it is assumed that both leases are in the same form. By Clause 3 of the lease and Part 4 of

3 the Schedule, the Applicant covenants (subject to payment of the service charge) to maintain repair redecorate and renew the external walls and structure of the property. Procedural history 7. On 12 January 2023, the tribunal gave case management directions. The directions included a reply form for any Respondent leaseholder who objected to the [NAME] to return to the tribunal and the Applicant by 8 February 2023, indicating whether they wished to have an oral hearing. The directions provided that this matter would be determined on or after 20 February 2023 based on the documents, without a hearing, unless any party requested one.

8. No leaseholder has responded and no party has requested an oral hearing.

Accordingly, this determination is based on the documents produced by the Applicant in their bundle. On reviewing these documents, I considered that an inspection of the Property was neither necessary nor proportionate to the issues to be determined and that a hearing was not necessary. The Applicant’s case 9. The bundle includes an email from [APPELLANT] of [NAME] to the [NAME] dated 6 October 2022 setting out the background to the [NAME]. Following a report of damp in [ADDRESS] from the cracked render on the extension rear wall of [ADDRESS], the freeholder obtained a quote for repair from the contractor working next door. They were able to do the works using scaffolding that had already been erected for roof works at the neighbouring property, which would mean that the cost was significantly reduced. The quote for the works was £780, above the current threshold of £250 per flat. In the circumstances the agent confirmed that permission had been given for the works to proceed without undertaking section 20 consultation and dispensation would be sought retrospectively from the tribunal.

10. The supporting statement in the Applicant’s bundle confirms that no objections were received from the [NAME] at the time and none since the [NAME] were sent a copy of the [NAME] for dispensation. The Respondents’ position 11. As noted above, the directions provided for any Respondent who wished to oppose the [NAME] for dispensation to complete the reply form attached to the directions and send it to the tribunal and the Applicant. The tribunal has not received any response or statement of

4 case opposing the [NAME], or comments on the Applicant’s statements in the [NAME] form. In the circumstances, the tribunal concluded that the [NAME] was unopposed. The tribunal’s decision 12. In the circumstances, based on the information provided by the Applicant (as summarised above), I am satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements in relation to the relevant works.

13. As noted above, this decision does not determine whether the cost of these works was reasonable or payable under the leases, or what proportion is payable under the lease(s), only whether the consultation requirements should be dispensed with in respect of them.

14. There was no [NAME] to the tribunal for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. Name: Judge Wayte Date: 20 February 2023

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.

5 If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).