Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Hearing

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : CAM/38UE/LDC/2021/0044

HMCTS code

(paper, video, audio) : P: PAPERREMOTE

Property :

13-17 St Helen’s [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted]

Representative : [COUNSEL], Property Surveyor

Respondents :

[redacted]

Property (including any of their subtenants of any such dwelling) who

are liable to contribute to the cost of

the relevant works

Type of [NAME] :

For dispensation from consultation

requirements - Section 20ZA of the

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal member : Judge Wayte

Date of decision : 20 December 2021

DECISION

Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing

This has been a remote determination on the papers which the parties are

taken to have consented to, as explained below. The form of determination

was P:PAPERREMOTE. A hearing was not held because it was not necessary;

all issues could be determined on paper. The documents I was referred to are

in the bundle of 120 pages prepared by the Applicant. I have noted the

contents and my decision is below.

2

The tribunal’s decision

The tribunal determines under section 20ZA of the Landlord and

Tenant Act 1985 to dispense with all the consultation requirements

in relation to the works described in the [NAME] form, namely

urgent works in respect of a number of loose tiles on the main roof

of the Property, including provision of scaffolding for access.

The [NAME]

1. The Applicant applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation

requirements in respect of qualifying works to refix or replace a number

of loose tiles on the main roof of the Property, including provision of

scaffolding for access.

2. The relevant contributions of the Respondents through the service

charge towards the costs of these works would be limited to a fixed sum

unless the statutory consultation requirements, prescribed by section

20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the “1985 Act”) and the

Service Charges (Consultation etc) (England) Regulations 2003:

(i) were complied with; or

(ii) are dispensed with by the tribunal.

3. The Applicant seeks a determination from the tribunal, under section

20ZA of the 1985 Act, to dispense with the consultation requirements.

The tribunal has jurisdiction to grant such dispensation if satisfied that

it is reasonable to do so.

4. In this [NAME], the only issue for the tribunal is whether it is

satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation

requirements. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of

whether any service charge costs of the relevant works will be

reasonable or payable, or what proportion is payable.

The property, the parties and the leases

5. The Applicant is the relevant landlord of the Property, which is

described in the [NAME] as a block of five purpose-built flats. Those

flats are all let on long leases by the Applicant.

6. All five leases were produced and appear to be in the same form. By

Clause 5 of the lease the Applicant covenants to maintain and keep in

good structural repair and condition the main structure of the Building

including the roof, subject to payment of the service charge by the

tenant.

3

Procedural history

7. On 12 November 2021, Judge Wyatt gave case management directions,

requiring the Applicant to serve on the Respondents copies of the

[NAME] form, an estimate of the potential cost of the works, if

possible and the directions. The Applicant confirmed this had been

done by letter dated 15 November 2021.

8. The directions included a reply form for any [NAME]

who objected to the [NAME] to return to the tribunal and the

Applicant by 3 December 2021, indicating whether they wished to have

an oral hearing. The directions provided that this matter would be

determined on or after 20 December 2021 based on the documents,

without a hearing, unless any party requested one.

9. No [NAME] has responded and no party has requested an oral

hearing. Accordingly, this determination is based on the documents

produced by the Applicant in their bundle. On reviewing these

documents, I considered that an inspection of the Property was neither

necessary nor proportionate to the issues to be determined and that a

hearing was not necessary.

The Applicant’s case

10. The bundle includes a copy estimate from the [COMPANY], contractors

for the Applicant, for £2,242.85 + VAT to erect scaffolding and replace

loose/cracked tiles as required, drop the scaffold and leave the area

clean and tidy. The bundle also includes correspondence informing

leaseholders that the works would be carried out on 29 October 2021

and the [NAME] for dispensation would be made to the tribunal.

The Respondents’ position

11. As noted above, 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. The tribunal has not received any response or statement of

case opposing the [NAME], or comments on the Applicant’s

statements in the [NAME] form. In the circumstances,the tribunal

concluded that the [NAME] was unopposed.

The tribunal’s decision

12. This [NAME] was not opposed by the Respondents, who have not

challenged the information provided by the Applicant, identified any

prejudice they might suffer because of the non-compliance with the

consultation requirements, or in these proceedings asked for or

provided any other information. In the circumstances, based on the

4

information provided by the Applicant (as summarised above), I am

satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation

requirements in relation to the relevant works.

13. As noted above, this decision does not determine whether the

cost of these works was reasonable or payable under the

leases, or what proportion is payable under the lease(s), only

whether the consultation requirements should be dispensed

with in respect of them.

14. There was no [NAME] to the tribunal for an order under section 20C

of the 1985 Act.

15. The Applicant landlord shall be responsible for serving a copy of this

decision on all relevant leaseholders.

Name: Judge Wayte Date: 20 December 2021

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).