Landlord Granted Dispensation for Electrical Works Without Consultation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2022/0060 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio)

P: PAPERREMOTE Property : 97-102 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COUNSEL] – [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] : N/A Type of application : S.20ZA – dispensation from consultation Tribunal member(s) : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 15 August 2022

DECISION

2

The tribunal’s summary decision 1. The tribunal grants the applicant dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the electrical works carried out to the subject premises as per the invoice of [NAME] dated 3 September 2021 in the sum of £2,350.00.

The application 1. The [NAME] makes this application pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’) and seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Act. Background 2. The subject premises comprise a terraced Victorian building converted into six flats. The applicant is the landlord of the subject premises and the respondents are the long [NAME]. In a sample lease dated 17th August 2005 made between [COMPANY] and [NAME] grating a term of 99 years with effect from 25 December 2000 in respect of 102 Elmhurst Mansion , the landlord is required to keep in repair the installations for the supply of electricity (Schedules 5 and 6).

3. A defect in the installations for the supply of electricity was identified by a [NAME] and an estimate for the identified required works was provided to the landlord’s managing agent [NAME] ([NAME]).The works were subsequently authorised by [NAME] and carried out by [NAME] in the sum of £2,350.00. The applicant’s case 4. The applicant relied upon its application and Statement of Case in which it was stated the [NAME] had made [NAME] aware of the dangerous nature of the electrical installation. The [NAME] were made aware of the decision to proceed with the identified works which were subsequently carried out and completed in December 2021.

5. Various email correspondence was provided by the applicant in which reference were made to Phase 1 and Phase 2 works, although the works

3 in each Phase was not clearly identified and only one invoice for works was provided. The respondents case 6. No objections to the application were received by the tribunal from any of the [NAME] at the subject property. The tribunal’s decision and reasons 7. In the absence of any objections to the works being carried out without compliance with section 20 of the Act, the tribunal is satisfied that the works as specified in the invoice dated 3 September 2021 from [NAME] were reasonably required and sufficiently urgent to require their completion at the earliest date.

8. The tribunal notes that [NAME] appears to be neither VAT nor NICE* registered although the tribunal is not required in this application to consider the standard of the works of the reasonableness of their cost.

*Registered with Napit #52283 9. In conclusion, the tribunal grants the dispensation sought by the applicant limited to the works carried out as per the invoice dated 3 September 2021.

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 15 August 2022