First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/34UF/LDC/2024/0610 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted]

[COMPANY]. (Management Company)

Representative : [COMPANY]. (Agent) Respondents :

[redacted] contribute at the Property noted in the application

Representative : None Landlords : [RESPONDENT]. Type of Application :

S2oZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - dispensation of consultation requirements

Tribunal : [COMPANY] :

First tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision : 10 April 2025

2 DECISION

Decision

1. The Tribunal grants dispensation from the requirements on the applicant to consult all [NAME] under S.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the qualifying works referred to, only.

2. At the date of application it was stated that construction work had not started. It was understood that the landlord’s agent was able to recharge costs under the service charge provisions to all [NAME] in the Property.

Background

3. The management company, through its agent, applied to the Tribunal under [POSTCODE] of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) for the dispensation from all or any of the consultation requirements contained in S20 of the Act.

4. The application related to 1. investigation of all roofing, 2. commissioning of urgent works to part of the roofing, at the Property. Both tasks were to remove water ingress, arising from the main pitch roof and related defects, into one or more of the flats and communal areas at the Property.

Directions

5. In response to the application dated 31 January 2025, for dispensation from consultation of [NAME], Directions dated 27 February 2025 were issued without an oral hearing. They identified that the respondents were the [NAME] of some 20No. flats at the Property. The Directions provided for the Tribunal to determine the application on or after 10 April 2025, unless a party applied on or before 20 March 2025 for a hearing.

6. The applicant was to send to [NAME] of the [NAME] of the dwellings at the Property; a copy of the application form, brief description of the works, an estimate of the costs of the works including any professional fees and VAT and anything else relied upon, with a copy of the Directions.

7. The applicant was to file with the Tribunal a letter by 6 March 2025, confirming how and when it had been done.

8. [NAME] who objected to the application were to send a reply form and statement to the Tribunal and applicant, by 20 March 2025. The applicant was to prepare a bundle of documents including the application

3 form, Directions, sample lease and all other documents on which they wanted to rely; all responses from [NAME], a certificate of compliance referred to above; with two copies to the Tribunal and one to [NAME] [NAME] and do so by 27 March 2025.

9. In the event, the Tribunal did not receive any requests for a hearing, nor did it receive any forms in support of or objection to respondents either directly or indirectly via the bundle.

10. The Tribunal determined the case on the application form and of a sample lease of a flat at the Property, received from the applicant only, with copy documents sent to [NAME].

Applicant’s Case

11. The application, at box 4 confirms that: “Blisworth Mill is a property that consists of 20 purpose built flats. It is a converted former industrial mill. The conversion took place in the early 2000’s…. Occupancy: Residential premises with an estimated occupancy of 30 persons…”

12. The application at box 7 confirms that these are to be qualifying works, and had not been started. They are not part of a long term contract.

13. At box 9 the applicant was content for paper determination but did not apply for it, at box 10, to be dealt with by [NAME]. There was no particular urgency apparently. However the applicant then explained: “We firmly believe that the required works are unavoidable and of an imminent nature, given the inclement and severe weather conditions. Addressing these issues promptly will help mitigate further avoidable damage. By instructing the works in this manner, we will achieve(d) significant cost savings for [NAME], as delaying the intervention could result in far greater damage than what is currently occurring due to the ongoing heavy rainfall and unexpected weather conditions.”

14. At ‘Grounds for seeking Dispensation’ box 1, the applicant explains: “This application concerns the qualifying works to be carried out in response to reported water ingress at roof level in multiple locations, caused by severe inclement weather conditions… This work is investigative only and any required repairs will be determined once the roof has been thoroughly investigated… The contractor is schedule to survey the roof and establish the cause of the leaks once it has been accessed safely… The quotation received from the contractor for the required investigative works is as follows: Total cost: £4300 plus VAT…”

15. The application at box 2. below this, described the consultation that had been carried out or is proposed to be carried out. “The stage one section

4 20 process is to be served by 1st class post to all 20 leases at Blisworth Mill... expiry date for initial observation was 5th March 2025.”

16. The application at box 3. below this; the agent is seeking: “…dispensation in these circumstances, is respectfully requested to negate the requirement to carry out stages two and three of the Section 20 consultation process, as it is believed that the works are urgent in order to identify and remediate the issue to prevent further damage, were would prefer to avoid any additional delay. Once the required works have been identified, we would like to proceed promptly with the necessary remediation. Directors of the RMC have been fully appraised through the investigation quotation and instruction process and are aware that we are seeking dispensation from the Court.”

17. The applicant did not include a list of the names and addresses for service of all [NAME] of the 20No. flats at the Property.

18. The applicant included a letter of 4 March 2025 which appeared to the Tribunal to be a standard letter said to have been sent to all [NAME] at the Property. It references a Notice of Intention dated 31 January 2025 said to have been sent to all [NAME]. This letter states: “Please understand that the application to the Courts is to be sped up the process of remediating the urgent roof works and not to prevent proper consultation with our valued [NAME] at Blisworth Mill. The access equipment required, places this work at the Section 20 Consultation threshold and investigations to establish cause of the leaks is only possible once the roof is accessed safely. Contractors will advise of necessary repairs once they safely access the roof.”

19. The applicant included a copy of a “Drone Inspection, Photos and Report” undated; produced by [APPELLANT]. The report was redacted by the applicant. It extends in this form to some 12No. A4 sides with some 16No. colour and 1No. monochrome photographs of the Property, especially of the double pitched roofs. At the back of the same Report there is a Quotation dated 4 March 2025 also from [COMPANY]. for works.

20. Firstly, this application for dispensation appeared to the Tribunal to be just for the investigation of defects and all and any works that might be required at the roofs of the Property including (as set out in the photograph on page 23 of the bundle). This was to be for the principal double pitched slated roof over the bulk of the Property by floor area (edged green on the photograph), and for the smaller lower flat roof and the smaller and lower double pitched roof over the remainder of the Property (edged yellow on the photograph). The application refers to a price of £4300 plus VAT for the investigation of all areas. There are no supporting documents for this price or who it is from, though [NAME] prepared their report on it and parts of that Report were provided to the Tribunal.

21. Secondly, the application for dispensation also appeared to the Tribunal to then extend of some urgent but, limited repair works, intended by the applicant to be completed soon after the investigative work. These works were to be limited to the southern portion of the principal roof at the Property, as set out in the area edged green, as marked on the aerial photograph of the Property at bundle page 33. The specification, quantities and quotation from [COMPANY] for these urgent repairs to part of the Property totalled £6655 plus VAT. These works appeared to include the cost of such scaffolding as is required for safe working and the inspection, removal and replacement of all and any broken slate tiles to that roof, only.

22. The initial investigation of all roofing and subsequent repair of some roofing, at the Property were separately priced as set out above 1. £4300 and 2. £6655 plus VAT in [NAME] case. It appears that the same contractor was to be used for both items of work. This application was not however made to cover any other works either prior to the investigation or subsequent to the urgent repairs quoted for in the report supplied.

23. The agent appeared to notify all [NAME] on 4 March 2025 that only these two sets of works above, were intended to be covered by dispensation and that any other works would follow the Consultation process in the usual way.

Respondent’s Case

24. The applicant had identified 20No. [NAME] at the Property, to the Tribunal from whom the service charge would eventually be recovered and had been identified as the potential respondents. The applicant confirmed in their letter of 4 March 2025, to the Tribunal that as required the documents set out in the Directions had been sent to all respondents. The applicant did not confirm that there were no objections from any [NAME].

25. The Tribunal did not receive any objections or other representations from the [NAME], either through the applicant, or directly.

The Law

26. S.18 (1) of the Act provides that a service charge is an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent, which is payable for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or landlord’s costs of management, and the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the costs incurred by the landlord. S.20 provides

6 for the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutory consultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250 can be recovered from a tenant in respect of such works unless the consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed with.

27. Dispensation is dealt with by S.20 ZA of the Act which provides:- “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.”

28. The consultation requirements for qualifying works under qualifying long term agreements are set out in Schedule 3 of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 as follows:-

1(1) The landlord shall give notice in writing of his intention to carry out qualifying works –

(a) to [NAME]; and (b) where a recognised tenants’ association represents some or all of the tenants, to the association.

(2) The notice shall –

(a) describe, in general terms, the works proposed to be carried out or specify the place and hours at which a description of the proposed works may be inspected; (b) state the landlord’s reasons for considering it necessary to carry out the proposed works; (c) contain a statement of the total amount of the expenditure estimated by the landlord as likely to be incurred by him on and in connection with the proposed works; (d) invite the making, in writing, of observations in relation to the proposed works or the landlord’s estimated expenditure (e) specify- (i) the address to which such observations may be sent; (ii) that they must be delivered within the relevant period; and (iii) the period on which the relevant period ends.

2(1) where a notice under paragraph 1 specifies a place and hours for inspection-

(a) the place and hours so specified must be reasonable; and

7 (b) a description of the proposed works must be available for inspection, free of charge, at that place and during those hours.

(2) If facilities to enable copies to be taken are not made available at the times at which the description may be inspected, the landlord shall provide to any tenant, on request and free of charge, a copy of the description.

3. Where, within the relevant period, observations are made in relation to the proposed works or the landlord’s estimated expenditure by any tenant or the recognised tenants’ association, the landlord shall have regard to those observations.

4. Where the landlord receives observations to which (in accordance with paragraph 3) he is required to have regard, he shall, within 21 days of their receipt, by notice in writing to the person by whom the observations were made state his response to the observations.

Tribunal’s Decision

29. The scheme of the provisions is designed to protect the interests of [NAME] and whether it is reasonable to dispense with any particular requirements in an individual case must be considered in relation to the scheme of the provisions and its purpose.

30. The Tribunal must have a cogent reason for dispensing with the consultation requirements, the purpose of which is that [NAME] who may ultimately pay the bill are fully aware of what works are being proposed, the cost thereof and have the opportunity to nominate contractors where there is no public procurement. The correspondence showed that the applicant complied generally with Directions.

31. The terms of this Dispensation from the requirements of Section 20, are:

32. That this only covers the work set out in the application form.

1. The initial investigation of all roofing at the Property.

2. The works to part of the roofing at the Property. No other documents detailing the extent, quality, or price of the works being carried out and/or to be undertaken in respect of the works to remedy this roof defect at the Property other than the form and the quote from the contractor named, as provided to the Tribunal.

33. No dispensation for any prior report, nor ancillary work before or after whichever quote or estimate is accepted by the applicant, is included in

8 this dispensation. In this case only one estimate was provided specifying the work and the price. This cost still remains subject to potential subsequent challenge by any [NAME], both of the item itself and/or the amount reasonably payable, in the usual way. Other than this no other items are included given dispensation because they were not specifically sought. Those other costs including any professional fees associated with the work will be subject to the annual cap of £250 per [NAME] for a contract for works rechargeable under a service charge or to a further application for dispensation if required. This is because they do not form part of this application for dispensation.

34. The applicant will meet all of its costs arising from the making and determination of this application. However these costs may be recovered from any [NAME] as service charge and/ or as an administrative charge if the lease of [NAME] unit allows for it, subject to the usual scope for [NAME] challenge to its reasonableness and payability.

35. In making its determination of this application, it does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs are reasonable or indeed payable by the [NAME]. The Tribunal’s determination is limited to this application for dispensation of consultation requirements under [POSTCODE] of the Act; in this case, on terms.

[NAME]

10 April 2025

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 either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision.

Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).

If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with

9 the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The application 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 making the application is seeking.

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