Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Health and Safety Works

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AJ/LDC/2023/0197 Property : 85/88 Old Circus, Northolt, Middlesex [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents :

[redacted] Representative :

None

Type of [NAME] :

For dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal :

Mr [APPELLANT] (Hons) LLM Property Law MA FRICS

Date of Decision : 1 October 2024

DECISION

This has been a remote paper determination, which has been consented to by the parties. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and no one requested same.

The documents the Tribunal were referred to were in a bundle of some 246 pages.

Decision

(1) The tribunal determines that unconditional dispensation should be granted from the consultation requirements from section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) in respect of the property 85/88 Old Circus, Northolt, Middlesex, [POSTCODE]. (2) We make no determination as to the reasonableness of the costs of same, these being matters which can be considered, if necessary, under the provisions of s27A and s19 of the Act. The [NAME]

1. This [NAME] is made by [COMPANY] on behalf of, the freeholder, [COMPANY] dated 18 July 2024.

2. The [NAME] seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

3. The [NAME] is concerned solely with the question of what consultation if any should be given of the consultation requirements of section 20 of the 1985 for works costing in excess of £250 per flat. It is not concerned with the reasonableness or payability of any service charges which may arise. The Determination

4. A written [NAME] was made by [COMPANY], appointed by 77 [COMPANY] the freeholder. The tribunal considered the written bundle of 77 pages, in support of the [NAME]. Background 5. The property comprises; a double fronted retail unit to the ground floor. Originally the residential part of the property was constructed over first and second floors only but has been extended to a third floor by the construction of a number of mansard windows into the existing roof void. The layout of the residential units are flats 86 and 88 having their own entrance doors directly off a walkway access via a staircase to the rear with all upper floor flats, accessed through a communal entrance door, located between the above-mentioned properties.

6. This [NAME] has been issued because according to the box titled “Grounds for Seeking Dispensation” it was noted that scaffolding was required to access the two roof level rain water outlets, as they were blocked and were causing water to go onto the public below Due to the height scaffolding was required and an engineer attended to pressure clean the outlets. The scaffolding cost was £1917 including VAT and the drainage contractors cost £420 including VAT.

7. Dispensation is sought by the Landlord for the works due to the health and safety of the general public. The Landlord noting, as the rainwater outlets were blocked causing water to cascade down the wall, due to the time of year and cold weather conditions the works were considered as urgent as the Landlord did not wish the ground water to freeze and have a member of the public fall. Therefore, the works were undertaken immediately to reduce the risk, of having to wait for the section 20 process to be completed.

8. The Directions dated 17 August 2024, provided for the tenants to be given copies of the [NAME] form, a brief statement to explain the reasons for the [NAME] and display a copy of the directions in a prominent place in the common parts of the property. This to be done by the 26 August 2024 and the Tribunal notified as such by the 29 August 2024.

11. The Directions also note that any [NAME] who opposes the [NAME] should by the 9 September 2024 complete the reply form and return it to the tribunal. The Landlord may by the 16 September 2024 provide a brief reply to any [NAME] who opposes the [NAME].

12. By Witness Statement of [NAME] of [RESPONDENT] dated 16 September 2024 the Landlord confirms that they have conformed

with the Directions. Additionally, the Landlord notes they have received an objection from one [NAME] [NAME]. 13. The only issue for the tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements of section 20 of the 1985 Act. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

Documents 13. The Applicant includes their [NAME] in the Bundle. [APPELLANT] who opposes the [NAME] submitted a witness statement and further supporting documentation. [NAME] concerns centre on several matters including; choice of contractor, quality of work carried out and whether the works were of an urgent nature.

14. The Landlord in their Reply, page 53 of the Bundle, to [RESPONDENT] objection noted the scaffolding was required to gain access to the affected site so that a CCTV survey could be carried out ti ascertain the issue and for debris to be removed. The tribunal’s decision 15. The Tribunal notes the concern of the [NAME] [NAME]. The concerns expressed do not in themselves cause there to be prejudice to the leaseholders. The tribunal grants dispensation under section 20 ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation) (England) 2003 for the works set out in the [NAME].

16. We are, aware of the judgment in [COMPANY] v Benson and others [2013] UKSC 14. The [NAME] for dispensation is not challenged.

17. The Supreme Court (Lord [NAME] at para 50) accepted that there must be real prejudice to the tenants. Indeed, the Respondents do not oppose the [NAME]. It is accepted that we have the power to grant dispensation on such terms as we think fit. However, the Landlord is entitled to decide the identity of the contractors who carry out the work, when they are done, by whom and the amount. The safety net for the Respondents is to be found in sections 19 and 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

18.

Accordingly, we find that unconditional dispensation should be granted. In [NAME] our decision we have borne in mind the quotes which we were referred, which in our finding clearly indicate that works are required at the Property.

19. Our decision is in respect of the dispensation from the provisions of s20 of the Act only. It is open to the [NAME] or others to apply under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 27A, should there be concerns over the payability and reasonableness of the service charge, these may include concerns over necessity, quality of work and its cost. [NAME]: [NAME] 1 October 2024.

ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. 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 at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.

2. 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].

3. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request to 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.

4. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (ie 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