Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Communal Roof Repairs

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST- PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDEN TIAL PROPERTY ) Case reference : LON/00BJ/LDC/2025/0688 Property :

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] :

[COMPANY] (Karine Noemi) Respondent : [redacted]

Type of [NAME] : For dispensation from consultation requirements - Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member(s) : Judge V Vodanovic Venue : Paper determination

2 Date of decision : 23.6.2025

DECISION

Decision of the Tribunal The Applicant’s [NAME] for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements pursuant to s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’) is granted and accordingly the statutory consultation requirement is dispensed with. This dispensation does not affect the Respondents ’rights to make an [NAME] to the Tribunal as to the reasonableness of the works or costs of the works or the payability of the service charge under sections 27A and 19 of the 1985 Act.

The [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks dispensation pursuant to s.20ZA of the Act from the full consultation requirements imposed on the Landlord by s.20 of the Act in respect of qualifying works required in relation to the communal atrium roof lights within the Property. The [NAME] is dated 10th March 2025. The Respondents to the [NAME] are the listed [NAME] of the flats within the Property, as set out in the Schedule appended to the [NAME]. Hereinafter they will be referred to as the [NAME].

The directions and the hearing 2. Directions of the Tribunal were issued on 30th April 2025 requiring the Applicant to give notice to the [NAME] of the [NAME] together with the directions and a brief statement to explain the reasons for the [NAME] by post, hand-delivery or email by 16th May 2025, and a copy of these to be displayed prominently in the common parts of the Property by the same date.

3 3. The Applicant has confirmed that the above directions have been complied with.

4. Any response from the [NAME] opposing the [NAME] was to be sent to the tribunal and the Applicant by 30th May 2025. Nothing has been sent to the tribunal by that date or indeed as of today’s date.

5. The case was listed for a paper determination. No request had been made by any of the parties for an oral hearing. The matter was determined by way of a paper hearing which took place on 23rd June 2025.

The Bundle 6. The tribunal had the benefit of considering a bundle prepared by the Applicant consisting of 64 pages which included the [NAME] form, the directions, a statement of case, notification to the [NAME] of the proposed works with the Notice of Intention, correspondence with the tribunal, the invoices for the works and a separate quote, and a sample Lease.

Background 7. The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the full statutory consultation requirements in respect of qualifying works in relation to the communal atrium lights in the Property.

8. The Property in question is a development in Battersea, having been built in 2014. It consists of 80 flats and one commercial unit over 9 floors. There is a flat atrium glass roof. A passenger lift opens out into an AOV ventilated atrium lobby.

9. The Applicant was made aware in August 2024 that the atrium roof lights were damaged so it instructed the site building contractor [COMPANY] ([COMPANY]) to inspect the roof and determine the specification of works. The damage was confirmed to 3 roof panels and 12 horizontal glass panels and on 3rd September 2024, scaffolding was erected for access and a crash deck was installed to prevent the glass panels from falling and crashing to the floor.

4 The cost in respect of this is set out in the [COMPANY] Invoice dated 9.9.2024 in the sum of £10,200 inclusive of VAT. This cost is NOT the subject of this [NAME] for dispensation (as set out in the statement of case at page 20 of the bundle).

10. The works required to remedy the damaged panels were assessed by [COMPANY] to be urgent and a quote was provided by them in the sum of £22,250 excluding VAT. This is the cost of works for which dispensation is sought as part of this [NAME].

11. The Applicant wrote to the [NAME] on 10.9.2024 (see pages 26 to 29 of the bundle) giving notice of their intention to carry out the above mentioned works. The Notice of Intent was attached setting out the proposed works, inviting representations from the [NAME] by 14.10.2024, thereby giving 30 days notice. The letter which attached the Notice of Intent also explained the full consultation process, setting out stages 2 and 3 after this initial stage.

12. Without completing the second stage of the consultation process, the Applicant instructed [COMPANY] to commence work on 22.10.2024 and these works were completed on 4.12.2024. The statement of case sets out that the Applicant considered there to be a degree of urgency in proceeding with the remedial glazing works taking into account the potential risk of serious injury or fatality should a panel fall on a resident below, preserving the integrity of the building structure and the additional costs associated with extended the hire of the crash deck (see page 19 of the bundle, paragraph 14). The cost of hiring the crash deck is set out at paragraph 11 of the statement of case.

13. The full consultation process has therefore not been completed and the Applicant seeks dispensation in respect of that particular failure.

Determination and reasons

5 14. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

The law 15. Section 20 of the 1985 Act provides for the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutory consultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250 can be recovered from a [NAME] in respect of such works unless the consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed with.

16. Dispensation is dealt with by s.20ZA of the Act which provides:- "Where an [NAME] is made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”.

17. The consultation process is set out in the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 SI 2003 No 1987. The relevant provisions for present purposes are within Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the Regulations. The first requirement to consult as set out within Part 2 appears to have been complied with by the Applicant. No objections or observations were received by the Applicant from any of the [NAME] following the initial consultation period which ended on 14.10.2024.

18. The Applicant did not proceed to the second stage of the consultation process which would have required the provision of at least two estimates to the [NAME] in respect of the proposed works. Instead, it instructed [COMPANY] to carry out the work based on the quote they had already provided, due to the urgency of the works.

6 19. The Applicant appears therefore to be seeking dispensation from the remaining consultation requirements. Section 20ZA of the 1985 allows such an [NAME] to be made as it refers to ‘all or any of the consultation requirements’.

20. Guidance on the approach of the tribunal in the exercise of this discretion was given by the Supreme Court in [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14. Any such guidance though was explicitly stated not to be seen as a fetter on the exercise of discretion, and the principles outlined should not be regarded as rigid rules because the circumstances in which an [NAME] for dispensation can be made are ‘almost infinitely various’. The issue on which the tribunal should focus when determining such an [NAME] was “the extent, if any, to which the tenants were prejudiced in either respect by the failure of the landlord to comply with the requirements”. If “the extent, quality and cost of the works were in no way affected by the landlord s failure to comply with the requirements” dispensation should normally be granted, because, “in such a case the tenants would be in precisely the position that the legislation intended them to be – ie as if the requirements had been complied with”.

21. The Supreme Court confirmed the proper purpose of the consultation requirements in s20 of the 1985 Act is to ensure that the [NAME] are protected from paying for inappropriate works or from paying more than would be appropriate. As set out above, the key issue for consideration by the tribunal is the extent of prejudice, if any, to the [NAME] caused by the failure to consult. The factual burden is, therefore, on the [NAME] to identify the prejudice suffered as a result of the failure to comply with the formal consultation requirements, and any prejudice which they would suffer if unconditional dispensation was given.

Factual considerations 22. Following reports of damage to the atrium roof lights, the Applicant investigated promptly. [COMPANY] confirmed there was damage to the glass panels following their investigation on 30.8.2024. The Applicant acted swiftly in

7 ensuring the safety of the building and its occupants by instructing [COMPANY], on their advice, to erect scaffolding for access and a crash deck for any falling panels. The crash deck was going to cost £8,500 excluding VAT to hire for a period of 8 weeks, taking it up to 31.10.2024. Thereafter, it was going to cost £425 per week.

23. In the interim, security measures had been put in place. [COMPANY] deemed the works to be urgent though and based on the potential risk of serious injury or fatality the Applicant decided to proceed with the remedial works without following through with the remainder of the consultation process. Before instructing [COMPANY] to do the works, the Applicant did obtain another quote from [APPELLANT] (see page 25 - £29,200 excluding VAT). On the basis that [COMPANY]’s quote was lower, the Applicant proceeded to instruct that contractor to do the works. In addition, the Applicant has set out in its statement of case [COMPANY]’s credentials (see page 20 of the Bundle).

24. There were no objections to the initial Notice of Intent from any [NAME]. No proposals were made by the [NAME] as to any contractor. Moreover, there were no objections from any of the [NAME] to the [NAME] form either. That [NAME] contained the above mentioned two quotes for works ([COMPANY] and Matrix) and the additional information explaining why the works were carried out without following the full consultation requirement. As no such objections have been received at either stage, there is no suggestion of any prejudice to the [NAME] arising from the failure to carry out the statutory consultation process.

25. There is nothing further in the form of any evidence or any representation before the tribunal to suggest that the [NAME] would be prejudiced by the landlord’s failure to consult. The extent and the nature of the damage identified to the communal areas of the Property meant that it needed to be dealt with as swiftly as possible. The Applicant was acting on advice from a [NAME] it had had dealings with before. It had started the initial part of the consultation process but ultimately due to the urgency decided that it would not complete that consultation process. Despite that, it did still

8 seek out an alternative quote before commencing works so that it could assure itself [COMPANY]’s quote was competitive.

26.

In all the circumstances, the tribunal is satisfied it is reasonable to grant unconditional dispensation under s 20ZA of the 1985 Act due to the nature and extent of the damage and its potential significant risks to the safety of the building. This dispensation applies to the works carried out by [COMPANY] that were deemed by the Applicant to be qualifying works as per the specification in paragraph 18 of its statement of case (see page 20 of the bundle).

27. Although it has granted dispensation to the Applicant under s20ZA of the 1985 Act, the tribunal is not [NAME] any determination about either: (i) the reasonableness of the works that have been carried out, (ii) the reasonableness of the costs of those works or (iii) whether they are payable by the Respondents though the service charge. Those are matters which the tribunal may consider on an [NAME] under sections 27A and 19 of the 1985 Act.

28. The tribunal further observes that the Applicant has not sought dispensation in respect of the costs relating to the initial hire period of eights weeks for the crash deck and the scaffolding costs on the basis that ‘those expenses fall below the section 20 threshold’ (paragraph 17 of the statement of case, see page 20 of the Bundle). This point is not within the remit of what this tribunal has to decide based on the [NAME] form but the tribunal does query whether that particular cost is indeed part of a separate package of works (so that it can be treated separately and the cost thereof assessed in relation to the threshold of £250) or whether it is in fact part of the same contract and closely related and connected to the main remedial works for which dispensation has been granted. As already stated, the tribunal makes no decision on this and the [NAME] has not raised this as an issue; it is ultimately a matter for the Landlord to consider.

Judge Vodanovic 23 June 2025

9

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 Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case.

2. 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].

3. If the [NAME] for permission to appeal 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 or not 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.