First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenants Must Pay for External Staircase Repairs

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/22UF/LSC/2019/0004 Property : [ADDRESS] : [APPELLANT](“the Landlords”) Representative :

Respondents : [redacted] tenants”)

Type of Application : Determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges Landlord and Tenant Act 1985,s27A. Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME] of Decision : June 2019

DECISION

1. The landlord is entitled under the lease to recover the cost of the repair work to the external staircases from the tenants.

2. The estimated cost of the repair works is reasonable.

The Application

2

1. [COMPANY] is the [NAME] of 1-36 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (The premises). [ADDRESS] contains 36 purpose built maisonettes in the form of 11 two storey buildings of brick and slate construction built around 1930. The blocks comprise either two or four individual properties. The back door for the first storey properties is accessed via an external metal staircase which is the subject of this application. The staircases are in varying degrees of disrepair and require works to bring them up to a reasonable standard. The landlords have obtained quotes for carrying out these works and consultation has taken place. There has been some complaint from [NAME] on the [NAME] [NAME] properties who do not immediately benefit from the external staircases.

2. The landlords applied to the Tribunal on the 16th January 2019 for a determination as to the payability and reasonableness of the charges likely to be incurred in repairing the external staircases. Directions were given on 24th January 2019. Tenants were invited to respond to the application by statement but save for two letters there was no substantive response from them and nobody attended the Tribunal save for [NAME] who is a Director of the [COMPANY].

3. The Tribunal inspected the premises and convened a hearing at the County Hotel where Mr [NAME] made submissions and was questioned about the application. He produced quotes derived from three companies. Quotes from [COMPANY] (£10432 plus VAT but excluding decoration) and [NAME] (£20150 plus VAT) had been sent to tenants as part of the consultation exercise. Tenants were invited to recommend alternative contractors and this resulted in a quote from CSF who are not VAT registered (£13100 including decoration). Although the quotes are not immediately comparable on a like for like basis because there was no specification

3

prepared the Tribunal's overall impression was that the CSF quote was a reasonable one taking into account the works involved.

The lease provisions

4. The Tribunal was provided with two leases, one involving a [NAME] and one a [NAME]. The leases were to all intents and purposes identical. Under clause 4 (5) the tenant covenants to pay one quarter (presumably one half in the case of blocks containing two flats) of the expenditure incurred in carrying out the [NAME]'s obligations in clause 5(4) (i) which is the covenant by the [NAME] to maintain and keep in good and substantial repair and condition (i) the main structure of the Building including the foundations and the roof thereof with its gutters and rain water pipes....

5. It seems clear to the Tribunal that the metal staircases form part of the main structure of the building. It is likely they were in situ when the blocks were built and it makes inordinate good sense that they are maintained by the [NAME]. Accordingly the cost of any repair works to the metal staircase falls within clause 5(4) (i) and would be apportioned equally amongst tenants within the block concerned.

6. We were told by Mr [NAME] that external decoration of the blocks was carried out separately from the repair and decoration to the external staircases. These external decoration costs fall within a separate provision of the lease (Clause 5(5)) and are apportioned amongst all of the tenants.

4

7. The Tribunal accepts that [NAME] [NAME] residents who derive little practical benefit from the external staircases may feel that it is unfair for them to be charged for their upkeep. The lease however is clear in its terms. Further it may be that if the staircases fell into a state of disrepair this could affect the marketability or mortgageability of the [NAME] [NAME] flats.

8. In summary the Tribunal finds that the landlord is entitled to recover the sums required to repair the external staircases from the tenants. The tribunal also finds that the estimated costs of the work, provided by CSF is reasonable.

[NAME]

1

Respondents : [redacted] tenants”)

PERMISSION TO APPEAL DECISION

1. Permission to appeal is refused.

Reasons

Reasons

2

1. Permission to appeal will only be granted where: (a) The Tribunal has wrongly interpreted or applied the law; (b) The Tribunal has wrongly applied or misinterpreted or disregarded a principle of

valuation or professional practice;

(c) The Tribunal has taken account of irrelevant considerations or failed to take

account of relevant considerations or evidence or there was a substantial procedural

defect; (d) The point or points at issue is/are of potentially wide implication

2. [NAME] did not attend the hearing despite being invited to do so. In any event their appeal grounds are misconceived. The Tribunal does not accept that the staircases in question "do not form an integral part of the fabric of the buildings" for the reasons given by [NAME]. Further the fact that the staircase may not be in use in certain cases does not preclude recovery of costs under the lease. The remainder of the submissions in the appeal letter do nothing to divert the Tribunal from its original decision.

[NAME]