First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Works Dispensation

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : MAN/00BN/LDC/2022/0039

Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] : [NAME]

Respondents : [redacted] Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA

Tribunal Member : Judge L [NAME] of determination : 19 December 2022

Date of Decision : 19 December 2022

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 Application

1. [APPELLANT] applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) for dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) in respect of Fire Safety Works (the Works) carried out at [ADDRESS] (the Property).

2. The Respondents are the [NAME] and listed at the Annex to this decision.

Grounds and Submissions

3. The application was received by the Tribunal on 5 May 2022.

4. The Applicant is the [COMPANY] with responsibility for the building.

5. The Tribunal did not carry out an inspection but understands that the Property

comprises 2 x 3 storey buildings, constructed of traditional brick cavity walls with

block and beam floors, with a flat roof, housing 40 individual flats.

6. On 22 July 2022, a Tribunal Judge made directions requiring the service of

documents by the Applicant upon each of the Respondents. The directions

provided that in the absence of a request for a hearing the application would be

determined upon the parties’ written submissions. However, it later came to light

that not all the leaseholder Respondents were included in the Applicant’s original

application. A Tribunal Legal Officer therefore made further directions on 5 October

2022. The Applicant amended its application to include all 40 of the leaseholders at

[ADDRESS] and was directed to serve a copy of its case bundle and the Tribunal

directions upon each Respondent Leaseholder. The Applicant’s Representative

confirmed on 27 October 2022 that the bundle had been served on all of the

Respondents.

7. The Applicant has provided a statement explaining why the application was made

to the Tribunal together with supporting documents.

8. On 27 October 2021, the Applicant made arrangements to meet with [NAME]. On 16 November 2021, a Fire Risk

Assessment was undertaken by [NAME]. A

number of fire safety issues were found and an action plan was drawn up in order to

remedy those issues. On 31 January 2022, [NAME] wrote to the Applicant confirming the breaches of the Regulatory Reform

(Fire Safety) Order 2005 and listing the areas of non-compliance. It stated that the

areas of non-compliance were considered serious but able to be rectified. Failure to

comply with the Regulations is an offence, which may result in the Combined

Authority issuing an Enforcement Notice to ensure compliance.

9. Quotes for the works were obtained as a matter of urgency, which is evidenced in

the Applicant’s bundle, so that the necessary actions could be instructed as soon as

possible, for the safety of the residents.

3 10. The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from a Respondent Leaseholder.

Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.

11. The Tribunal convened without the parties to make its determination on 19

December 2022.

Law

12. Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.

13. Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the

charges are reasonably incurred.

14. Section 20 of the Act states:- “Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements

Where this Section applies to any qualifying works…… the relevant contributions of tenants are limited……. Unless the consultation requirements have either:- a. complied with in relation to the works or b. dispensed with in relation to the works by …… a tribunal. This Section applies to qualifying works, if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount”.

15. “The appropriate amount” is defined by regulation 6 of The Service Charges

(Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) as

“……. an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more

than £250.00.”

16. Section 20ZA(1) of the Act states:- "Where an application is made to a Tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works ……..….. the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements."

Tribunal’s Conclusions with Reasons

17. I have determined this matter following a consideration of the Applicant’s case but

without holding a hearing. Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)

([NAME]) Rules 2013 permits a case to be dealt with in this manner

provided that the parties give their consent (or do not object when a paper

determination is proposed). In this case, the Applicant has given its consent and

the Tribunal has not heard from a Respondent in response to the application.

Moreover, having reviewed the case papers, I am satisfied that this matter is

indeed suitable to be determined without a hearing. Determining this matter

does not require me to decide disputed questions of fact.

18. It is not necessary to consider at this stage the extent of any service charges

that may result from the works payable under the terms of the Respondents’

leases. If and when such is demanded, and if disputed, it may properly be the

subject of a future application to the Tribunal.

19. Having considered the submission made by the Applicant I accept the urgent nature

of the works. A consultation exercise would have added considerable delay. For the

safety of all Residents, a decision was taken to act swiftly and carry out the

4

necessary urgent works. The Applicant’s agent did keep leaseholders informed as to

the progress of the works.

20. In [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 it was determined that

a Tribunal, when considering whether to grant dispensation, should consider

whether the tenants would be prejudiced by any failure to comply with the

Consultation Requirements. Balancing the need for urgent action against

dispensing with statutory requirements devised to protect service charge paying

Leaseholders, I conclude that the urgency outweighs any identified prejudice.

Dispensation from consultation requirements does not imply that any resulting

service charge is reasonable.

Order

21. The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in

respect of the work specified in the application.

[NAME] Tribunal Judge 19 December 2022

5

Annex - List of Respondent Leaseholders and Unit Number

Leaseholder Unit Archibald Hart 1 [NAME] 2 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 3 [NAME] 4 [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] 6 [NAME] 7 [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] 9 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [ADDRESS] & Mrs [NAME] 11 [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] 15 [NAME] & [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] 18 [NAME] [ADDRESS] & [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [ADDRESS] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [ADDRESS] Limited 25 [NAME] [ADDRESS] Enterprise [ADDRESS] [NAME] 28 [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] 31 [NAME] [ADDRESS] M & Mrs [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [ADDRESS] & [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] 38 [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [ADDRESS]

6