First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/26UB/LDC/2023/0024 Property : 1-14 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant

Representative

:

: [COUNSEL] (Broxbourne) [APPELLANT]

[NAME], Property Manager, [NAME] Respondents : [redacted] property Type of [NAME] : For dispensation from consultation requirements - Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : [APPELLANT] [NAME]([NAME]) Date of decision : 10 July 2023

DECISION

Description of hearing This has been a remote determination on the papers which the parties are taken to have consented to, as explained below. A hearing was not held because it was not necessary, and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents that I was referred to are in hardcopy bundles from the Applicant. I have noted the contents and my decision is below.

The tribunal’s decision The tribunal determines under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of qualifying works to repair the roof.

2 Reasons for the tribunal’s decision The [NAME] (1) The applicant freeholder seeks retrospective dispensation with the statutory consultation requirements in respect of qualifying works to repair the roof. (2) The relevant contributions of leaseholders through the service charge towards the costs under these agreements would 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) In this [NAME], 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) The only issue here for the tribunal is whether it is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements (5) This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs under the relevant agreements will be reasonable or payable or by whom they are payable. The Property and parties (6) The applicant says the property consists of a 3-storey purpose built property housing 13 residential units and built in the 1970’s, (7) The [NAME] is made by [NAME] on behalf of the landlord, [NAME] (Broxbourne) [RESPONDENT]. The [NAME] was made against the leaseholders of the relevant flats (the “Respondents”) Procedural history (8) The Applicant says that dispensation is sought, as explained below. (9) Initial case management directions were given on 11 May 2023. The directions included a reply form for any leaseholder who objected to the [NAME] to return to the tribunal and the Applicant, also indicating whether they wished to have an oral hearing. Any such objecting leaseholder was required to respond by 9 June 2023.

3 (10) The directions further provided that this matter would be determined on or after 10 July 2023 based on the documents, without a hearing, unless any party requested an oral hearing (11) On reviewing these documents, the tribunal 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. (12) No request for a hearing was made by the parties. The Applicant’s case (13) They state that leaks from the roof into the cavity wall were causing severe damp and mould issues within individual flats. The resident directors held an EGM with all the owners and discussed various quotes . A decision was then made to proceed with the works. (14) The works were said to be urgent to prevent further damage. (15) The quote supplied with the [NAME] is for £28,800 including VAT. The works included a new felt box gutter, removal of all slates from the 4 hips of the roof, removal of the EPDM damp course from the hips, fitting zinc soakers and reslating the roof using the existing slates. The Respondents’ position (16) As mentioned 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. (17) The tribunal has not received any response or statement of 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 Determination (18) Following the Supreme Court decision of Daejan Investments Ltd. v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, the only issue for the Tribunal is whether the Respondents have suffered prejudice in dispensing with the consult This [NAME] for dispensation from the consultation requirements was not opposed by the Respondents, who have not challenged the information provided by the Applicant in the [NAME] form, identified any prejudice which they might suffer because of the non- compliance with the consultation requirements, nor asked to be provided with any other information.

(19) The tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in relation to the

4 (20) It therefore determines under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with all relevant consultation requirements in relation to the works described. (21) This is not an [NAME] for the tribunal to approve the reasonableness of the contracts or the reasonableness, apportionment or payability of any service charge demand. (22) I make no finding in that regard and the leaseholders will continue to be able to make an [NAME] under section 27A of the Act in respect of the reasonableness of the agreements and/or the reasonableness, apportionment or payability of the service charge demand for them. (23) There was no [NAME] to the tribunal for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. (24) The Applicant shall be responsible for serving a copy of this decision on all leaseholders.

[NAME] [NAME]([NAME]) 10 July 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).