First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Consultation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BE/LDC/2020/0054 P Properties : Various Flats at [NAME], [ADDRESS], London, Se16 3AD Applicant : [redacted] Manage Company Limited Representative : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted]

Representative : No Representative Type of [NAME] : To dispense with the statutory consultation requirements Tribunal Member :

[NAME](Econ)

Date of Consideration : 26 May 2020 Date of Decision : 26 May 2020

DECISION 1. This has been a paper hearing on the papers which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was a paper determination which is not provisional. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, no-one had requested a hearing and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents what I was referred to are the [NAME] form plus 11 pages, the contents of which I have noted.

2. The Tribunal grants the [NAME] for dispensation from statutory consultation in respect of the subject works. For clarity the works are

2 of 4 2 the replacement of three obsolete booster pumps serving a pressurized water system at [NAME]. REASONS

The [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) dispensing with statutory consultation in respect of major works.

2. This [NAME] is in relation to works at [NAME], 20 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (the subject property). The property is described as a purpose-built block of fifty flats in three buildings and over six floors. The Applicant is [APPELLANT] and the Respondents are the leaseholders of the various flats.

3. The [NAME], made by [NAME] on behalf of the Applicant, was dated 21 April 2020. [NAME] were issued by the Tribunal on 22 April 2020. The [NAME] initially listed the matter for a paper determination for the week commencing 18 May 2020, unless any party made a request for a hearing. There was no request for a hearing but the Tribunal had not received the bundle in time and therefore the Tribunal eventually considered this case on the papers submitted to it on 26 May 2020. The [NAME] also required the Applicant to send to each [NAME] a copy of the [NAME] form, supporting documents and the [NAME] and to place a copy of the documents on a communal notice board. By an email dated 26 April 2020 it was confirmed that the Applicant had taken the necessary steps to inform the leaseholders as required by the [NAME].

4. The [NAME] seeks dispensation in respect of works for the replacement of three obsolete booster pumps serving a pressurized water system at Crown Place. The [NAME] was stated to be urgent as there was a risk that the water supply to the flats could fail and there is current high demand due to the Covid-19 lockdown scenario.

5. The papers submitted on behalf of the Applicant included quotations for the proposed work from [NAME] ([NAME]) dated 11 March 2020 and from [NAME] ([NAME]) dated 19 March 2020. In a summary of the costs the total costs were £18,108.00 from [NAME] and £14,570.01 from [NAME].

6. In a document dated 7 April 2020 it was explained that the water supply to the apartments is provided by a pressurized system incorporating three booster pumps. The pumps date from the 2011 when the property was constructed. Problems to the water supply

3 of 4 3 started in early March 2020 and although the fuse to the pumps was re-set there were recurring problems. A temporary repair was carried out on 12 March but it was reported that the booster pumps would need to be replaced. Despite the temporary repair there was still continued problems with the water supply. A further repair was carried out, but there are still concerns about the sustainability of the repair and the continued threat to the water supply.

7. The [NAME] invited any [NAME] who opposed the [NAME] to submit a response form to the Tribunal and to make any statement of response to the Applicant/landlord by 7 May 2020. In an email from the Applicant’s representative dated 22 May 2020, it was confirmed that there had been no bounce back from the emails and no replies from any of the Respondents/leaseholders.

Determination

8. Section 20ZA(1) of the Act provides:

“Where an [NAME] 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.”

9. The Tribunal has taken account the decision in [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14.

10. As mentioned above there has been no engagement from the Respondents. The work is of an urgent nature given that there is a risk of a failure of the water supply to the fifty flats.

In all the circumstances the Tribunal grants the [NAME] for dispensation from statutory consultation in respect of the subject works, considering it reasonable to do so. For clarity the works are the replacement of three obsolete booster pumps serving a pressurized water system at [NAME].

11. The Tribunal directs that the Applicant sends a copy of this decision to all the Respondent/leaseholders.

12. This decision does not affect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction upon any future [NAME] to make a determination under section 27A of the Act in respect of the reasonable cost of the work.

Name: [NAME] C [NAME]: 26 May 2020

4 of 4 4

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. 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 [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.

2. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

3. 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.

4. 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.