Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Dry Rot Works

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/26UD/LDC/2019/0005 Property : 1-9 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Respondents : [redacted] [NAME] of [NAME] :

For dispensation of the consultation requirements in respect of qualifying works under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Member : Judge Wayte Date of Decision : 2 September 2019

DECISION

The Tribunal determines that an order for dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act shall be made dispensing with all of the consultation requirements in relation to the works described in the [NAME].

2 The [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks an order pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) (“the 1985 Act”) for the dispensation of any or all of the consultation requirements in respect of urgent works to remedy dry rot in apartment 5. The property concerned is described in the [NAME] as a Grade II Listed building converted into nine apartments (“the Property”) and the [NAME] is made against the [NAME] in the schedule attached to the [NAME] form (“the Respondents”).

2. The issue in this case is whether the consultation requirements of section 20 of the 1985 Act should be dispensed with.

3. This is a retrospective [NAME] in respect of works undertaken in or about February 2019 as set out in the quotation dated 21 December 2018 from [NAME], damp and timber specialists. Confirmation was obtained from the directors of the management company to proceed with the works on the basis of that single quote as they were deemed urgent. In particular, apartment 5 was uninhabitable and there was a risk of further damage to the building. The background 4. The [NAME] was received on 1 March 2019. Due to the need to obtain further information which was not provided until 12 June 2019, directions were not given until 19 June 2019 and then amended on 18 July 2019 due to an oversight on the part of the Applicant’s agent. In accordance with usual practice, the applicant was asked to serve copies of the [NAME] and directions on the [NAME]. The directions contained a reply form for any [NAME] who objected to the [NAME] to return to the tribunal and the Applicant.

5. The directions provided that this matter would be considered by way of a paper determination unless a hearing was requested. A hearing was not requested and accordingly the [NAME] was considered on the papers on 2 September 2019.

6. The Tribunal did not consider that an inspection was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute.

7. The only issue before the Tribunal is whether it should grant dispensation from all or any of the consultation requirements contained in section 20 of the 1985 Act.

3 The Applicant’s case 8. The Applicant relied on the papers filed with the [NAME], in particular an inspection report and quote from [NAME] dated 21 December 2018, together with their invoice dated 15 February 2019. The report referred to additional reports having been prepared by [NAME] and [NAME] but neither has been sent to the tribunal. As stated above, the applicant’s case is that due to the urgency of the works and the risk to the building, they proceeded with the works on the basis of the only quote without going through a formal consultation process (or getting other estimates). The total cost of the works, including VAT, is £8,385.60. The Respondents’ position 9. The directions provided for any Respondent who wished to oppose the [NAME] for dispensation to complete the reply form attached to the directions and send it to the tribunal and the Applicant. Neither the Applicant nor the tribunal has received any response or statement of case in opposition to the [NAME]. In the circumstances the tribunal concluded that the [NAME] was unopposed. The Tribunal’s decision 10. The Tribunal determines that an order for dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act shall be made dispensing with all of the consultation requirements in relation to the works outlined above. Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision 11. The tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act “if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”.

12. The [NAME] was not opposed by the [NAME]. The tribunal is satisfied that the works were urgently required and properly authorised. In the circumstances it is appropriate to grant an order for dispensation. If there is any concern about the costs that could be the subject of a separate [NAME] under section 27A of the 1985 Act in due course. [NAME] under s.20C 13. There was no [NAME] for any order under section 20C before the tribunal.

4 Name: Judge Wayte Date: 2 September 2019

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 regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office 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).