First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Works

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/00ME/LDC/2019/0038 Property : [NAME], [NAME], Sunninghill, Ascot [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Respondents : [redacted] [NAME] of [NAME] :

For dispensation of the consultation requirements under section 20ZA Tribunal Member : Judge Wayte Date of Decision : 8 January 2020

DECISION

The Tribunal determines that an order for dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act shall be made dispensing with all of the consultation requirements in relation to the works described in the [NAME].

2 The [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks an order pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) (“the 1985 Act”) for the dispensation of any or all of the consultation requirements in respect of urgent roof works, in particular the installation of membrane roof system waterproofing. The property concerned is described in the [NAME] as a 1930s Grade II listed mansion, converted into six residential apartments. There is ongoing water ingress and patch repairs have failed to rectify the problem. Due to the damage being caused to the building and the apartments, dispensation is sought to enable the works to start without delay. The [NAME] is made against the [NAME] in the schedule attached to the [NAME] form (“the Respondents”).

2. The issue in this case is whether the consultation requirements of section 20 of the 1985 Act should be dispensed with. The background 3. The [NAME] was received on 3 December 2019 and directions were given the same day, with the Applicant required to serve the [NAME] and directions on the Respondents. The directions contained a reply form for any [NAME] who objected to the [NAME] to return to the tribunal and the Applicant. The Applicant confirmed service on the Respondents by letter dated 9 December 2019.

4. The directions provided that this matter would be considered by way of a paper determination unless a hearing was requested. A hearing was not requested and accordingly the [NAME] was considered on the papers on 8 January 2020.

5. The Tribunal did not consider that an inspection was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute.

6. The only issue before the Tribunal is whether it should grant dispensation from all or any of the consultation requirements contained in section 20 of the 1985 Act. The Applicant’s case 7. The Applicant’s bundles included a statement in support of the [NAME] by [NAME], the [NAME]. The statement exhibited an email report detailing issues with the flat roof to [NAME] and photographs showing some of the defects/damage. That report confirmed that the most effective solution to the ongoing problems would be to overlay the entire affected area with a waterproof membrane.

3 8. The tribunal had requested confirmation of the cost of the works, although this [NAME] only deals with the issue of dispensation as set out in the directions. Two quotes were provided with the bundle, the Applicants have chosen [COMPANY] at £34,371 + VAT, who were cheaper than the alternative and have knowledge of the [NAME] estate. The Respondents’ position 9. 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. Mr [APPELLANT] statement confirms that the only responses he has received to both informal notification and the issue of the [NAME] have been informal acknowledgment of the required works and support for expedition. The tribunal has not received any response or statement of case in opposition to the [NAME]. In the circumstances the tribunal concluded that the [NAME] was unopposed. The Tribunal’s decision 10. The Tribunal determines that an order for dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act shall be made dispensing with all of the consultation requirements in relation to the works outlined above. Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision 11. The tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act “if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”.

12. The [NAME] was not opposed by the [NAME]. The tribunal is satisfied that the works were urgently required and properly authorised. In the circumstances it is appropriate to grant an order for dispensation. [NAME] under s.20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 13. There was no [NAME] for any order under section 20C before the tribunal. Name: Judge Wayte Date: 8 January 2020

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