Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Structural Works in Marius Mansions

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BJ/LSC/2020/0117 HMCTS Code : P:Paper remote Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondent: [redacted]

The [NAME] of the 16 flats in [ADDRESS] of [NAME] :

To dispense with the requirement to consult [NAME] about works

Tribunal members :

Judge [NAME] venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 1 September 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 23th March 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 investigation of dry rot discovered in the timber wall plates and joists supporting the floor of flat 5 and any remedial work found to be necessary. The applicant consented to the [NAME] being determined on the papers alone and without an oral hearing.

2. The tribunal gave directions on 26 June 2020. The directions provided for a paper determination unless by 7 August 2020 any party requested an oral hearing. It is apparent that no such request was received by the tribunal.

3. The directions required the applicant by 8 July 2020 to confirm by email that it had sent to each [NAME] by 3 July 2020 copies of the [NAME] form and the directions and had placed copies in a prominent place in the common parts of Marius House. The applicant did not comply with that requirement and the tribunal case office sent a reminder on 6 August 2020 which elicited the response that “the [NAME]” was sent to the [NAME] on 2 July 2020. We first considered the documents on 21 August 2020. At our request the tribunal case office requested the applicant’s representative to confirm that a copy of the tribunal directions had also been sent to every [NAME]. Without such confirmation we could not be satisfied that the [NAME] were aware of their right to object to the [NAME]. That confirmation was received on 25 August 2020. Our request for an update on the progress of the works and any estimates obtained was ignored. Although we are satisfied that an update and copy estimates are not essential to the decision that we are required to make we nevertheless consider it appropriate to express our reservations about the conduct of the applicant’s representative in responding to both the tribunal directions and our request for additional information.

4. The directions required those [NAME] who opposed the [NAME] to complete a reply form attached to the directions and return it to the tribunal by 24 July 2020. The reply form also gave the [NAME] the opportunity to request an oral hearing. We are advised by our case officer that no completed reply forms were received by the tribunal.

3 5. As a result of the Covid-19 Pandemic the applicant was required to submit digital papers by email. We were given remote access to those papers that included the [NAME] form, a specimen lease, a specialist report from a firm of Civil and Structural Engineers, an intention notice of 12 March 2020 served on the [NAME], observation in response received from two [NAME] and email correspondence from the applicant’s representative. Having reviewed those documents we are satisfied that the case is suitable for a paper determination. It is on the basis of those documents that we find the facts recorded in the following sections of this decision. Decision 6. For each of the following reasons we dispense with the consultation requirements provided by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in so far as they relate to the proposed investigation of dry rot discovered in the timber wall plates and joists supporting the floor of flat 5 and any remedial work found to be necessary. Reasons 7. The [NAME] is supported by the report of [NAME] [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], MIEI, which in turn relies on the report prepared by [NAME]. Although Mr [NAME] report is dated 27 April 2020 he has provided as an addendum the report of a site visit on 7 July 2020.

8. It is apparent from all three reports and from photographs appended to Mr [NAME] report that the timber wall plates and joists supporting the floor of flat 5 are in very poor condition and likely to be affected by dry rot.

9. Although Mr [NAME] considers that “the building fabric/structure ….is not in danger of collapse” it is nevertheless apparent that the structure supporting the floor of flat 5 has been compromised. We are satisfied that any further investigations and the remedial work itself should be completed as quickly as possible and should not be delayed by strict compliance with the consultation requirements.

10. We remind ourselves that we are not concerned with either the [NAME]’ liability to pay a service charge in respect of the proposed work or the reasonableness of the cost. The [NAME] will still be able to challenge both their liability to pay a service charge and the actual cost of the proposed work should they consider it unreasonable.

11. The Intention Notices served on 12 March 2020 gave the [NAME] notice of the proposed investigations and remedial works and invited observations. Only two observations were received: one nominated a contractor and the other requested the completion of additional work to a

4 window frame. None of the [NAME] objected to the proposed investigations and remedial works. 12. None of the [NAME] have objected to the [NAME] for dispensation despite being given the opportunity to do so. Name: Judge Angus Andrew Date: 1 September 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 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).