First-tier Tribunal Rejects Request for Dispensation on Fire Safety Works

OUTCOME: Refused

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case reference : LON/00BC/LDC/2023/0015 Property : 1100 properties across the London Borough of Redbridge as listed on the [NAME] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : [COMPANY] no. AD/104049/92 Respondents : [redacted] named on the [NAME] : N/A

Type of [NAME] : [NAME] for dispensation to consult – section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal : Judge [NAME] of decision : 28 June 2023

DECISION

2

The tribunal’s summary decision

(1.) The tribunal refuses to grant the applicant dispensation in respect of the proposed Qualifying Works to replace the [NAME] across its property portfolio as specified in its [NAME] for dispensation from consultation pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

_________________________________________________________

The [NAME]

1. This is an [NAME] made pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’) seeking dispensation for the consultation requirements in respect of the works required to remedy fire safety issues that have been identified.

Background

2. The landlord/applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of the inspection by the Applicant's agents of the existing front entrance doors ("[NAME]") at each of the listed leasehold properties within the residential buildings over 11 metres in height and, if the existing [NAME] do not comply with the current fire safety standard, the removal and disposal of the existing [NAME] and the installation of fire doors meeting current fire safety standards as a replacement FED.

3. Following amendments made to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 ("FSO") in May of this year, and following receipt by the Applicant of a Regulatory Notice from the [NAME] dated 28 September 2022, the applicant is required to work with the [NAME] to remedy the identified safety failing and carry out the Qualifying Works (as described above) in order to discharge its duties as the "Responsible Person" under the FSO. Consequently, the applicant is required to satisfy the [NAME] that it has delivered the requirements of the FSO to make safe its multi- occupied residential buildings over 11 metres in height.

4. The Applicant has now obtained estimates from four contractors who have all provided the same price range for the works to be undertaken as being between £1,642.85 and £5,500.00. The cost quoted includes both survey of the existing FED at each of the leasehold properties and installation of a new FED as required. The final cost for the replacement FED will be within the above price range but will depend on several factors, including the final design of the replacement door, the extent of works required to the surrounding structure of the doorframe to enable installation and any request for weekend installation. If following survey of the [NAME], any door is confirmed as already being a fire safety compliant door then only the cost for the survey will be charged; this cost is currently estimated at £85.00. Once the survey has been completed, and if a

3

replacement FED is required, the contractor will provide a breakdown of the estimated cost for the replacement FED.

5. The applicant says that the qualifying works have not yet been carried out but are planned to be carried out as soon as possible due to the urgency of ensuring both that the [NAME], which separate domestic premises and common or communal parts of the Applicant's Buildings, are legally compliant with fire safety regulations and to urgently address fire risk arising from non-compliant [NAME].

6. The applicant has commenced a consultation with the [NAME] in respect of the qualifying works in accordance with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charge (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 and a Notice of Intention dated 12 January 2023 informing the [NAME] of its intention to carry out Qualifying Works as the applicant proposed to run the section 20 consultation procedure in tandem with the [NAME] for dispensation from the consultation requirements until, and if, the dispensation is granted by the Tribunal.

The hearing

7. The [NAME] was determined by the tribunal on the papers as no party requested an oral hearing. In [NAME] its decision the tribunal took into account the information provided by the applicant by way of a bundle comprising 571 pages which included the responses from [NAME] objecting to this [NAME].

8. In its Statement of Case dated 21 April 2023 the applicant stated the [NAME] had served a Regulatory Notice in September 20223 which informed the applicant it was failing to comply with statutory health and safety requirements regarding, inter alia, fire safety and was in breach of the Home Standard. The Regulatory Notice served made it clear that, to avoid enforcement action, the applicant had to take immediate action to remedy the breach of the Home Standard by putting in place, and continuing, a programme to rectify the failures.

9. These measures identified to remedy the failings were to include the replacement of the [NAME] in its multi-occupied residential blocks to ensure the fire integrity of the common parts as a means of escape.

10. The applicant also stated that as from 23 January 2023, there is a legal requirement, under the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, for Responsible Persons under the [NAME], for all residential buildings with at least two dwellings in England over 11 metres in height, to (i) undertake quarterly checks of all fire doors (including self-closing devices) in the common parts of their multi-occupied residential buildings; and (ii) undertake – on a best endeavours basis – annual checks of all flat entrance doors (including self- closing devices) that lead onto those buildings’ common parts.

11. The applicant also state it is however allowing its [NAME] to opt out of the applicant’s own contractor undertaking the works to replace the [NAME] and allowing its [NAME] to arrange for these works to be undertaken by the

4

[NAME]’ own contractors and at the [NAME]’ own cost. If any [NAME] choose to proceed in this way, they are required to notify the applicant of the identity of the [NAME], supplier and installer and then provide the applicant’s home ownership team with appropriate certificates of installation and fire safety compliance. The [NAME] must also notify the applicant of when the works will be undertaken, failing which the applicant will undertake the Qualifying Works.

12. A number of [NAME] objected to this [NAME] citing reasons that included a fire safety compliant FED had already been fitted; fire safety risk to building is low; dispensation [NAME] is ‘unsafe’ and full consultation should be required; inappropriate works proposed; applicant has been aware of problems for years and has failed to act; no real urgency for works and building less than 11 metres high.

The tribunal’s decision

13. The tribunal refuses to grant the applicant dispensation in respect of the proposed Qualifying Works to replace the [NAME] across its property portfolio.

Reasons for the tribunal’s decision

14. The tribunal acknowledges the importance of the proposed qualifying works and their need to be carried out (subject to certain exceptions). However, the tribunal finds that although the works are required by the [NAME], the applicant has not identified any real urgency to their being carried out. In particular, the tribunal finds the [NAME] has not identified or referred to the works being required ‘urgently’ when it states in the Regulatory Findings:

The [NAME] has concluded that: a) London Borough of Redbridge ([NAME]) has breached part 1.2 of the Home Standard; and b) As a consequence of this breach, there was the potential for serious detriment to [NAME]'s tenants. The [NAME] will work with [NAME] as it seeks to remedy this breach.

And

[NAME] has started to put in place a programme to rectify these failures and has assured the [NAME] that it is taking action to remedy the breach of standard. The [NAME] will therefore not take enforcement action at this stage. The [NAME] will work with [NAME] as it continues to address the issues which have led to this situation, including ongoing monitoring of how it delivers its programme.

15. Further, the tribunal finds that if the section 20 consultation process has been followed in tandem with this [NAME], as has been stated by the applicant, the consultation requirements would have either have been completed or nearly

5

completed by the date of this decision. The tribunal finds [NAME] were informed that on service of the Notice of Intention:

‘Observations must be received within the consultation period of 30 days from the date of this notice. The consultation period will end on 14th February 2023.’

16. The tribunal notes the applicant has already sourced [NAME] to carry out the works and finds it difficult to understand the need for this [NAME] for dispensation on the basis of urgency although it accepts that works are required. Therefore, in all the circumstances, the [NAME] for dispensation from consultation is refused

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 28 June 2023

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

6