DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·20 March 2024

First-tier Tribunal Rejects Landlord's Request to Bypass Consultation for Bee Removal Costs

Case No.

📌 In brief

In a dispute over bee removal costs at Spofforth Hall, the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application seeking an exemption from consulting a person. The tribunal ruled that since each leaseholder’s contribution was within their legal obligation under their leases, no further consultation was necessary.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is not required to consult a person if each contributes no more than one eighteenth of the cost of common repairs.

Topics

tenancy disputesservice charges

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZALandlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section outlines the conditions under which a tribunal can determine to waive consultation requirements related to certain works or long-term agreements. Specifically, it states that the tribunal may make such a determination if it is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with these requirements.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal dismissed the landlord's application under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, finding that consultation requirements were not triggered.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal dismissed the landlord's application under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, finding that consultation requirements were not triggered as each leaseholder was required to contribute no more than one eighteenth of the cost for common repairs.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/36UD/LDC/2023/0046

Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted] Schedule

Type of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA

Tribunal : Tribunal Judge [NAME] Tribunal Member [NAME] of Decision : 19 December 2023

DECISION

The application is dismissed.

REASONS

1. The Applicant seeks an order under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act “) that the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Act be dispensed with in relation to expenditure incurred in May 2023.

2. Around 6 May 2023 the Applicant was required to take urgent steps to remove a swarm or nest of honey bees from the common parts of Spofforth Hall (“the Property”) and to have repointing works undertaken in order to prevent a further incursion of bees. The work was carried out in the loft and cavity wall

near to apartment 10 and cost £3750. The location of apartment 10 and the area affected by the bees was not disclosed to the Tribunal.

3. There are 18 dwellings at the Property. Some are flats and some are described as detached houses. The numbers of each are unknown. The Tribunal was provided with a sample lease (of unit 8H). There is no indication that the leases of the other 17 dwellings contain materially different terms. The lease refers to a “Hall Building” not otherwise defined. The Tribunal has not been told which of the Respondents live in flats, and which occupy houses.

4. The lease provides that the leaseholder is to pay 5.556% (one eighteenth) of the expenses listed in Schedule 9 of the lease. Those obligations would include removal of the bees and steps taken to prevent their return.

5. The Applicant named all 18 [NAME] as Respondents to the application. Nothing in the lease suggests that some of the [NAME] might be obliged to pay for maintenance costs incurred in relation to part only of the Property, or that management expenses were not divided equally between the [NAME] via the service charge provisions in their leases.

6. The Applicant states that only 10 (unidentified) [NAME] were obliged to contribute to the cost of removing the bees. If this were so, each of the 10 would be required to contribute £375, the consultation requirements of the Act would be triggered and the present application would be justified. Since under the terms of their leases each Respondent is obliged to contribute no more than one eighteenth of the cost (£208.34), section 20 of the Act does not apply, no consultation was required, and the present application is unnecessary.

Schedule – the Respondents

1. [NAME] [NAME] & K [NAME] 2. [NAME] 3. [NAME] K [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] 4. [NAME] 5. [NAME] 6. [NAME] [NAME] 7. [NAME] [NAME] 8. [NAME] 9. [NAME] [NAME] 10. [NAME] [NAME] 11. [NAME] 12. [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] 13. [NAME] [NAME] 14. S R Holden & [NAME] [NAME] 15. Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] 16. [NAME] [NAME] 17. [NAME] [NAME] 18. [NAME] M [NAME]

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Dismissed12 cases

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

The tribunal found that each leaseholder was obliged to contribute no more than one eighteenth of the cost.
The tribunal determined that section 20 of the Act does not apply because of the individual contribution amount.
The tribunal concluded that no consultation was required for the bee removal and repointing works.
The tribunal found the application for dispensation of consultation requirements to be unnecessary.

❌ Tends to be rejected

The applicant's claim that only 10 leaseholders were obliged to contribute to the cost was not accepted.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal dismissed the landlord's request to bypass consultation requirements for bee removal costs.

Who was involved?

A landlord and leaseholders at Spofforth Hall were involved in a dispute over service charges.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court ruled that since each leaseholder's contribution was within their legal obligation under their leases, no further consultation was necessary.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20ZA and Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The key argument was that each leaseholder's contribution did not exceed their legal obligation under their leases.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the landlord, dismissing their application.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Leaseholders are generally required to contribute no more than one eighteenth of common repair costs under their leases.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The lease terms and the cost breakdown of the bee removal works were key pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can typically be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.