First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Major Works

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/43UF/LDC/2023/0070

Property

:

29-31 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

Robinsons

Respondent: [redacted]

[NAME] Mr [COUNSEL]

:

Type of Application

:

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

Tribunal member

:

D Banfield FRICS, Regional Surveyor

Date of Decision

:

26 July 2023

DECISION

The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of works comprising the provision of scaffolding, the fitting of snow guards and the repair of the roof covering.

In granting dispensation, the Tribunal makes no determination as to whether any service charge costs are reasonable or payable.

2 Background

1. The Applicant seeks 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 27 June 2023.

2. The property is described as: “THE PROPERTY HAS TWO COMMERCIAL UNITS ON THE GROUND FLOOR (A [NAME] AND A [NAME]) AND TWO PURPOSE BUILT FLATS ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS.”

3.

The Applicant explains that:

“[NAME] [APPELLANT] BEEN INSRUCTED TO SCAFFOLD THE WHOLE PROPERTY TO PRIMARILIY INSTALL SNOW GUARDS IN AN EFFORT TO PREVENT ANY FUTURE OF FUTHER SLATES FROM SLIPPING AND CAUSING A REAL HAZARD TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE ROOF. SECONDLY THE REAR SIDE OF ONE OF THE [NAME] IS EXPERIENCING WATER INGRESS SO [NAME] BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CARRY OUT THE REPAIRS OR EVEN LOOK AT A REPLACEMENT WHILST THE SCAFFOLDING IS UP”

OUR PROPOSED DATE FOR THE WORK TO START IS 28/06/23.

TO DATE THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMAL CONSULTATION WITH THE [NAME] (ONLY VIA EMAIL). WE HAVE ENGAGED THE SCAFFOLDERS AND HAVE INSTRUCTED THEM TO BEGIN THE WORK IMMINENTLY. WE [NAME] OF THE CURRENT SITUATION IN WRITING.

WE ARE SEEKING DISPENSATION AS THE LOOSE/SLIPPING TILES ON THE ROOF ARE IN DANGER OF FALLING AND CAUSING SIGNIFCANT HARM TO PEDESTRIANS IN THE HIGH STREET. ADDITIONALLY ONE OF THE [NAME] IS EXPERIENCING WATER INGRESS WITHIN THEIR DEMISE. THERE IS NO TIME TO CONFORM WITH THE CONSULTATION PROCESS.”

4. The Tribunal made Directions on 3 July 2023 setting out a timetable for the disposal. The Tribunal sent them to the parties together with a form for the [NAME] to indicate to the Tribunal whether they agreed with or opposed the application and whether they requested an oral hearing. If the [NAME] agreed with the application or failed to return the form they would be removed as a Respondent although they would remain bound by the Tribunal’s Decision.

3 5. No replies were received and no requests for an oral hearing were made. The matter is therefore determined on the papers in accordance with Rule 31 of the Tribunal’s Procedural Rules.

6. Before making this determination, the papers received were examined to determine whether the issues remained capable of determination without an oral hearing and it was decided that they were, given that the application remained unchallenged.

The Law

7. The relevant section of the Act reads as follows:

S.20 ZA Consultation requirements: Where an application is made to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long-term agreement, the Tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.

8. The matter was examined in some detail by the Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v [NAME]. In summary the Supreme Court noted the following. a. The main question for the Tribunal when considering how to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with section 20ZA is the real prejudice to the tenants flowing from the landlord’s breach of the consultation requirements.

b. The financial consequence to the landlord of not granting a dispensation is not a relevant factor. The nature of the landlord is not a relevant factor.

c. Dispensation should not be refused solely because the landlord seriously breached, or departed from, the consultation requirements.

d. The Tribunal has power to grant a dispensation as it thinks fit, provided that any terms are appropriate.

e. The Tribunal has power to impose a condition that the landlord pays the tenants’ reasonable costs (including surveyor and/or legal fees) incurred in connection with the landlord’s application under section 20ZA (1).

f. The legal burden of proof in relation to dispensation applications is on the landlord. The factual burden of identifying some “relevant” prejudice that they would or might have suffered is on the tenants.

4 g. The court considered that “relevant” prejudice should be given a narrow definition; it means whether non-compliance with the consultation requirements has led the landlord to incur costs in an unreasonable amount or to incur them in the provision of services, or in the carrying out of works, which fell below a reasonable standard, in other words whether the non-compliance has in that sense caused prejudice to the tenant.

h. The more serious and/or deliberate the landlord's failure, the more readily a Tribunal would be likely to accept that the tenants had suffered prejudice.

i. Once the tenants had shown a credible case for prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it.

Evidence

9. The Applicant’s case is set out in paragraph 3 above.

Determination

10. Dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 of the Act may be given where the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with those requirements. Guidance on how such power may be exercised is provided by the leading case of [NAME] v [NAME] referred to above.

11. No objections have been received. No prejudice has been identified by the Lessees and as such the Tribunal is prepared to grant the dispensation required.

12. The Tribunal therefore grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of works comprising the provision of scaffolding, the fitting of snow guards and the repair of the roof covering.

13. In granting dispensation, the Tribunal makes no determination as to whether any service charge costs are reasonable or payable.

14. The Tribunal will send copies of this decision to Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME].

[NAME] 26 July 2023

5

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.