First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repair Dispensation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/ 23UB/LDC/2021/0111

Property

:

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

[COMPANY]

: [COUNSEL]

Respondent: [redacted]

:

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

Tribunal Member

:

[NAME] of Decision

:

On 20 December 2021 in accordance with rule 6A of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013 as amended by The Tribunal Procedure (Coronavirus) Amendment Rules 2020 SI 2020 No 406 L11.

DECISION

The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of works to repair the roof and chimney to prevent further water ingress.

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

The Applicant is to send a copy of this determination to the [NAME].

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.

2. The Applicant explains that the Property is a former detached house which has been converted into eight flats.

3. The [RESPONDENT] is said to be urgent because of water ingress to one of the flats on the upper floor, which is getting worse as time goes on. There are no specific details. It is further said that a chimney has developed a stress crack which requires repair and that lead (flashing presumably) requires replacement and repair. The Tribunal assumes some of each, unless the [RESPONDENT] intended to say “or”.

4. The anticipated cost of the intended work is not identified but must be anticipated to exceed £250 per flat. It is said that the Applicant cannot wait for two months because of issues with further damage and insurance.

5. The Tribunal made Directions on 29 November 2021 indicating that the Tribunal considered that the [RESPONDENT] was suitable to be determined on the papers without a hearing in accordance with rule 6A of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013 as amended by The Tribunal Procedure (Coronavirus) Amendment Rules 2020 SI 2020 No 406 L11.

6. The Tribunal sent to the Lessee Respondents its Directions together with a copy of the [RESPONDENT] and a form to indicate whether they agreed with or objected to the [RESPONDENT] and if they objected to send their reasons to the Applicant and Tribunal.

7. It was indicated that those [NAME] who agreed to the [RESPONDENT] or failed to respond would be removed as Respondents.

8. Six replies were received all of whom agreed with the [RESPONDENT] and as indicated above all [NAME] have therefore been removed as Respondents.

9. 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 [RESPONDENT] remained unchallenged.

10. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with any statutory consultation requirements. This decision does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

The Law

3 11. The relevant section of the Act reads as follows:

S.20 ZA Consultation requirements:

Where an [RESPONDENT] 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.

12. The matter was examined in some detail by the Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v Benson. In summary the Supreme Court noted the following;

i. 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.

ii. 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.

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

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

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

vi. 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.

vii. 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.

4 viii. 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.

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

13. The reason for the [RESPONDENT] is set out in paragraph 3 above. In the absence of any objection from the [NAME] the Applicant has not been required to submit any further evidence and the determination is made on the papers already received.

Determination

14. 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.

15. No objections have been received and therefore no evidence of prejudice as referred to in the Daejan case above has been submitted.

16. In view of the above the Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of works to repair the roof and chimney to prevent further water ingress.

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

18. The Applicant is to send a copy of this determination to the [NAME].

D [NAME] [NAME] 20 December 2021

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) must seek permission to do so by making written [RESPONDENT] by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.

5 2. The [RESPONDENT] must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the [RESPONDENT] 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 [RESPONDENT] 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 [RESPONDENT] for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The [RESPONDENT] 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 [RESPONDENT] is seeking.