Right to Manage Company Exempted from Consultation Requirements for Fire Safety Testing

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case reference

:

LON/00AM/LDC/2020/0068 HMCTS Code : P:Paper remote Property : Flats 1 – 14, 105 Pritchard’s [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] Respondent: [redacted]

The long leaseholders of flats 1 – 14 105 Pritchard’s Road

Type of [NAME] :

To dispense with the requirement to consult leaseholders about works

Tribunal members :

Judge Angus Andrew

Hearing venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 10 August 2020

DECISION

2 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the applicant and not objected to by the respondents. The form of remote hearing was P: PAPER REMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and no-one requested the same. The [NAME] and determination 1. On 21st May 2020 the applicant applied to the tribunal for dispensation from the consultation requirements provided by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the proposed testing of the external wall covering/cladding. Two quotations were enclosed with the [NAME]. One from [NAME] for £7,450 plus VAT: the other from [APPELLANT] for £3,500. The applicant consented to the [NAME] being determined on the papers alone and without an oral hearing.

2. The tribunal gave directions on 3 June 2020. The directions provided for a paper determination unless any party requested an oral hearing within 28 days of the date of the directions. It is apparent that no such request was received by the tribunal.

3. The directions required the applicant by 19 June 2020 to send to each respondent copies of the [NAME] from, estimates, a statement of reasons and the directions. By letter of 4 June 2020 the applicant sent the required documents to each of the respondents. It is apparent from the letter that the testing had already been completed by [COMPANY] who had provided the lowest quotation.

4. The directions required the respondents to complete a reply form attached to the directions and return it to the tribunal by 10 July 2020. The reply form requested the respondents to say whether they supported or opposed the [NAME]. I am advised by my case officer that two completed reply forms have been received by the tribunal. Both replies support the [NAME] and agree to a decision on the basis of the documents alone.

5. As a result of the Covid-19 Pandemic the applicant was required to submit digital papers by email. I was given remote access to those papers that included the [NAME] form, a specimen lease, the two estimates referred to above, a statement of reasons, the letter of 4 June 2020 referred to above and email correspondence from the applicant’s representative. Having reviewed those documents I am satisfied that the case is suitable for a paper determination. It is on the basis of those documents that I find the facts recorded in the following sections of this decision.

3 Decision 6. For each of the following reasons I dispense with the consultation requirements provided by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in so far as they relate to the testing of the external wall covering/cladding by [COMPANY] at a cost of £3,500. Reasons 7. Following the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower Government Guidance issued most recently in January 2020 requires the testing of the external wall covering/ cladding to ensure that it complies with fire safety standards. It is essential that the testing is completed as quickly as possible and that it is not delayed by strict compliance with the consultation requirements.

8. In the absence of a satisfactory test report it is proving difficult for long leaseholders to either sell or re-mortgage their flats because [NAME] are substantially discounting the perceived market value of the flats and in some cases are returning £0 (zero) valuations.

9. Although I remind myself that I am not concerned with the reasonableness of the cost the applicant nevertheless obtained 2 quotations and chose the cheapest.

10. None of the respondents have objected to the [NAME] and two have actively supported it.

11. The [NAME] is made by a [COMPANY] that is under the control of at least a majority of the respondents.

12. Under the terms of the respondents’ leases the lessor is responsible for the external wall covering/cladding and that responsibility is transferred to the applicant. Name: Judge Angus Andrew Date: 10 July 2020

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

4 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).