Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works Addressing Dry Rot

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : CAM/00ME/LDC/2025/0689

Property : Apts 1-7, 6 The [APPELLANT], [NAME], [NAME], Windsor, [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondents :

[redacted]

Representative : None

Landlord : [NAME] [APPELLANT] of Application :

S2oZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - dispensation of consultation requirements

Tribunal : [COMPANY] : First tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision : 27 November 2025

DECISION

Decision

1. The Tribunal grants dispensation from the requirements on the applicant to consult all leaseholders under S.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the qualifying works referred to.

2. At the date of application it was stated that construction work had not started. (Form Leasehold 5 Box 6.2). It was understood that the applicant, was able as the management company to recharge costs under the service charge provisions to all leaseholders in the Property.

Background

3. The application form was completed by the agent for the management company which at sample lease grant in 2017 was [APPELLANT]. The landlord (and presumably freeholder) at lease grant was [RESPONDENT]. though this interest may also (per the application form) now be held by the same management company.

4. The applicant seeks dispensation from the Tribunal under [POSTCODE] of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) from all or any of the consultation requirements under S.20 of the Act, of leaseholders of related dwellings, who might be liable for service charge contributions arising from works.

5. It appeared to concern urgent works needed to apparently remove parts of the ground floor (mainly leased areas) that may have been caused by leaking communal rainwater drainage pipework which may have caused dry rot to mainly leased areas at the Property.

Directions

6. Directions dated 16 October 2025 were issued without an oral hearing by Legal [NAME]. They identified that the respondents were the leaseholders of the various dwellings – flats at the Property. The Directions provided for the Tribunal to determine this on or after 27 November 2025, unless a party applied by 6 November 2025 for a hearing.

7. The applicant was to send to each of the leaseholders of the dwellings at the Property at least; a copy of the application form, brief description of the works, an estimate of the costs of the works including any professional fees and VAT and anything else relied upon, with a copy of the Directions.

8. The applicant was to file with the Tribunal a letter by 24 October 2025, confirming how and when it had been done.

9. Leaseholders who objected to the application were to send a reply form and statement to the Tribunal and applicant, by 6 November 2025. The applicant was to prepare a bundle of documents including the application form, Directions, sample lease and all other documents on which they wanted to rely; all responses from leaseholders, a certificate of compliance referred to above; with two copies to the Tribunal and one to each respondent leaseholder by 13 November 2025.

10. In the event, the Tribunal did not receive any requests for a hearing, nor did it receive any forms in support of or objection to respondents either directly or indirectly via the bundle.

11. The Tribunal determined the case on the bundle received from the applicant, only.

Applicant’s Case

12. The application on Form Leasehold 5, dated 10 October 2025, at box 2.3 confirmed that the Property is an estate of 12No. units. Of these there were 5No. freehold town houses and 7No. leasehold flats in one block. “The flats were converted in 2027 (2017 ?) to seven leasehold two bedroom units. The original building was contracted in approximately 1910. hs dispensation is requested for the seven leasehold units of 6 The [APPELLANT].” (The application does not concern the freehold houses nor any estate charges which may arise).

13. The application at box 6.1 confirms that these are to be qualifying works, and had not been started or carried out already box 6.2. They are not part of a long term contract, box 6.3. At box 8.1 the applicant was content for paper determination and applied for it, at box 8.2 they confirmed that it was urgent owing to its effects on the health of occupiers.

14. The application at ‘Details of dispensation’ Box 6, stated at 6.5.1: “We have recently found considerable dry rot under the void of the floors of flats 1&4 (ground floor). This is not an insurable risk. We need to urgently remove the dry rot due to health reasons…”

15. At Box 6.5.2. below this, they described the consultation that had been carried out or is proposed to be carried out. “To date we have identified the problem with the proposed works exceeding £7000. All owners have been informed the works need to be carried out.”

16. At Box 6.5.3 below this, they explained why they sought dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements. “We seek dispensation due to the potential risk to health due to mould. This requires urgent rectification above the Section 20 threashold.”

17. At Annex 1 the applicant also states: “…We have to date had a survey performed of the drains to confirm no cracked/ leaking pipes (attached survey from ASL). We have also had a damp specialist (attached report fro [NAME]) to quote for the removal of the dry rot. This report on it relates to Flat 4 since this report we have also found serious drt(y) rot in Flat 1.” And: “We have only informed the x7 leaseholders that there is a serious problem of dry rot as this time. We propose to consult with the leaseholder when we have qualified the problem and costed the solution. We will require further quotes before the consultation and act as quickly as possible.”

18. A copy of the sample completed lease dated 16 June 2017 of Flat 3 at the Property between the then freeholder [COMPANY], [APPELLANT]. and the then leaseholder.

19. The applicant failed to confirm in the bundle that it had notified all leaseholders in accord with the Directions from its application to the Tribunal for dispensation from the S.20 Consultation process.

20. In the bundle was a short Report dated 2 May 2025 from [COMPANY]. ‘damp-proofing woodworm an dry rot specialists’ which included a quotation of the same date for ££5670 plus VAT. The report was only on Flat 4 and only internally, that is, on areas normally demised and not those common to others at the Property. The Report confirmed that dry rot had been found to skirting boards and flooring in a bedroom at Flat 4, within the flat, that sub-floor areas (normally not demised) had not been inspected.

21. In the bundle was also a longer Report dated 11 September 2025 from ASL (plumbers): “All aspects of drainage and watermains”. It referred to a CCTV drain survey completed 10 September 2025. It contained surveys of differing pipe runs under the Property. There was reference to Foul Water Surveys No.1- 27 and; reference to Surface Water Surveys No.1-11, each with at least 2No. still monochrome photographs of the interior of pipe runs. The report excluded the survey of 12No. gullies and a chamber at or near the soakaway owing to a vehicle parked over. The Report recommended proposed works to provide fuller access to inspect the drains more fully. The works were quoted at £2760 plus VAT. There was also further reference to a total figure of £8145 plus VAT (which included the £2760) for the works found to be needed to the various foregoing pipe run surveys. The prices were ascribed in detail to each of the pipe runs surveyed.

22. If the applicant included a list of names and addresses of leaseholders names affected by the expenditure they were far too small for the Tribunal to read and had in effect not been provided in further breach of Directions.

Respondent’s Case

23. The applicant failed to confirm that the respondent leaseholders had been sent the documents specified by the Tribunal in its earlier Directions.

24. The Tribunal did not receive any objections or other representations from the leaseholders, either through the applicant, or directly. However as there had been no confirmation of service from the applicant, it leaves this issue open to later challenge from a leaseholder if they can show prejudice.

The Law

25. S.18 (1) of the Act provides that a service charge is an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent, which is payable for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or landlord’s costs of management, and the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the costs incurred by the landlord. S.20 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 tenant in respect of such works unless the consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed with. For long term contracts, the cap on contributions from leaseholders is £100 per annum.

26. Dispensation is dealt with by S.20 ZA of the Act which provides:- “Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation 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.”

27. Dispensation is dealt with by S.20 ZA of the Act which provides:- “Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation 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.”

28. The consultation requirements for qualifying works under qualifying long term agreements are set out in detail at Schedule 3 of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

29. The consultation requirements for qualifying works for which public notice is not required are set out in detail at Schedule 4 of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

Tribunal’s Decision

30. The scheme of the provisions is designed to protect the interests of leaseholders and whether it is reasonable to dispense with any particular requirements in an individual case must be considered in relation to the scheme of the provisions and its purpose.

31. The Tribunal must have a cogent reason for dispensing with the consultation requirements, the purpose of which is that leaseholders who may ultimately pay the bill are fully aware of what works are being proposed, the cost thereof and have the opportunity to nominate contractors where there is no public procurement.

32. The correspondence showed that while the applicant generally complied with the Directions there were some significant breaches for no reason including: No index, no page numbers, no confirmation of notice to leaseholders, nor of what was sent or when and some documents were in less than 12 pt script making them illegible. However as the dispensation in this case is limited in scope, these omissions are waived on this occasion. However the applicant should take care to follow all future Directions carefully to avoid the rejection of a later application.

33. The terms of this Dispensation from the requirements of Section 20, are:

34. That this dispensation covers the work set out in the single initial quotation for drainage work referenced above to extent of the works only and not in excess of the gross price quoted within it. No dispensation for any prior report, nor ancillary work before or after whichever quote or estimate is accepted by the applicant, is included in this dispensation.

35. The works to remedy dry rot were wholly within the flat demised to one of the leaseholders. These are not Qualifying Works. This area surveyed and priced for is not part of the communal areas and the applicant did not suggest otherwise. This dispensation from Consultation excludes any works to a particular demise. The resolution of liability and costs remain a matter for the landlord, management company and the leaseholder of the individual Flat (4) to settle. No survey and quotation for dry rot remedial or any other works to Flat 1 (also mentioned by the applicant), were received by the Tribunal, but the same would apply to all work within that demise too.

36. These works (for which dispensation is granted), their extent, quality, and price remain subject to subsequent challenge by any respondent leaseholder, both of the item itself and/or the amount reasonably payable, in the usual way. Other than this no other items are included or given dispensation because they were not specifically sought. Those other costs including any professional fees associated with the work will be subject to the annual cap of £250 per leaseholder for a contract for works rechargeable under a service charge or to a further application for dispensation if required. This is because they do not form part of this application for dispensation.

37. The applicant will meet all of its costs arising from the making and determination of this application. However these costs can be recovered from any leaseholder as service charge and/ or as an administrative charge if the lease of each unit allows for it, subject to the usual scope for leaseholder challenge to its reasonableness and payability.

38. In making its determination of this application, it does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs are reasonable or indeed payable by the leaseholders. The Tribunal’s determination is limited to this application for dispensation of consultation requirements under [POSTCODE] of the Act; in this case, on terms.

[NAME] 27 November 2025

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 either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision.

Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).

If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The application 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 making the application is seeking.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).