Tribunal Grants Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation Without Full Consultation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/LDC/2019/0117 Property : 1-9 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Respondents :

[redacted] per the application

Type of application :

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

Tribunal member :

Judge P [NAME] [NAME] of decision : 2nd September 2019

DECISION

2 Decision of the tribunal

(1) The tribunal dispenses with the consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying works which are the subject of this application to the extent that they have not already been complied with. (2) No cost applications have been made. The application 1. The Applicant seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by section 20 of the 1985 Act in relation to certain qualifying works, to the extent that those requirements have not already been complied with.

2. The Property is a purpose-built block of 9 flats.

3. The application concerns qualifying works to replace the main cables for the lift. Paper determination 4. In its application the Applicant stated that it would be content with a paper determination if the tribunal considered it appropriate. In its directions the tribunal allocated the case to the paper track (i.e. without an oral hearing) but noted that any party had the right to request an oral hearing. No party has requested an oral hearing and therefore this matter is being dealt with on the papers alone. Applicant’s case 5. The Applicant states that there is an urgent need to carry out works in relation to the repair/replacement of the lift cables and associated sensors. The work is urgent because elderly residents living on the upper floors of the block are dependent on the lift for access to their respective flats.

6. A stage 1 section 20 notice was issued to all [NAME] on 25th July 2019. A copy of the specification for the works has been sent to the tribunal.

7. The Applicant has confirmed in writing that it has notified all [NAME] of its application for dispensation.

3 Responses from the Respondents 8. None of the Respondents has opposed the application or made any other representations. The relevant legal provisions 9. Under Section 20(1) of the 1985 Act, in relation to any qualifying works “the relevant contributions of tenants are limited … unless the consultation requirements have been either (a) complied with … or (b) dispensed with … by … the appropriate tribunal”.

10. Under Section 20ZA(1) of the 1985 Act “where an application 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…, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”. Tribunal’s decision 11. We note the Applicant’s rationale for applying for dispensation, namely that the lift repair work is urgent because elderly residents living on the upper floors of the block are dependent on the lift for access to their respective flats. We also note that the Applicant has sent out a stage 1 section 20 notice and that none of the Respondents has opposed the application for dispensation.

12. We are satisfied that the works are urgent and that the Applicant has carried out such limited consultation as will have been reasonably possible in the circumstances. In addition, and importantly, none of the Respondents has opposed the application or made any other representations. There is also no evidence before us that any of the Respondents has been prejudiced by the failure fully to consult.

13. Therefore, we are satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the formal consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying works which are the subject of this application to the extent that those requirements have not already been complied with. In addition, in the absence of any evidence that the Respondents have been prejudiced by the failure to go through the full consultation process, there is no question of the Respondents being entitled to compensation for prejudice suffered.

14. For the avoidance of doubt, this determination is confined to the issue of consultation and does not constitute a decision on the reasonableness of the cost of the works.

4

Name: Judge P [NAME]: 2nd September 2019

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

A. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office dealing with the case.

B. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

C. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

D. 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.