Old Bank House, Corporation St. High Wycombe, Bucks HP13 6TQ CAM/00MX/LDC/2025/0694
DECISION
[1]The Tribunal does NOT grant 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. Background[2]The applicant appears to be the management company acting through the managing agent, under the leases and is seeking, from the Tribunal under S20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) dispensation 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. Directions[3]Directions dated 1 December 2025, were issued without an oral hearing by Legal Officer Sarah Tallen. They identified that the respondents were the leaseholders of the various dwellings at the Property. The Directions provided for the Tribunal to determine the application on or after 2 February 2026, unless a party applied by 12 January 2026 for a hearing.[4]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.[5]The applicant was to file with the Tribunal a letter by 8 December 2025, confirming how and when it had been done.[6]Leaseholders who objected to the application were to send a reply form and statement to the Tribunal and applicant, by 12 December 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 19 January 2026.[7]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.[8]The Tribunal determined the case on the bundle received from the applicant, only. Applicant’s Case[9]The application Form Leasehold 5, at box 4 provides a ‘Brief description of the Building’. “Old Bank House, Corporation Street, High Wycombe, Bucks HP13 6TQ. Former offices converted to apartments. Single staircase and shared sole means of escape via main entrance.” Regrettably the number of flats is not provided here.[10]The application Form 5, at box 7 confirmed that the dispensation sought was for qualifying works but that the work had not been completed or started. At box 8 they confirmed that there were no related applications. At box 9 they were content with a paper determination.[11]The application Form 5, at box 1o confirmed that it was a fast track case and urgent because: “These works are urgently required as the existing window frame presents both Health and Safety and Fire Risk concerns. The replacement will ensure the continued safety of residents, improve the overall condition of the development, and ensure compliance with the obligations set out in the Lease.”[12]The application Form 5 is dated 31 October 2025. At box 14.1 ‘Grounds for Seeking Dispensation’… ‘Describe the qualifying works…’. “Replacement of the top floor stairwell window frame.”[13]At box 14.2 ‘Describe the consultation that has been carried out or is proposed to be carried out.’ “The leaseholders were sent correspondence advising the need for the works to commence without consultation due to time constraints and the directors have agreed for Alba to submit an application.”[14]At box 14.3 ‘Explain why you seek dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements.’ “These works are urgently required as the existing windo frame presents both Health and Safety and Fire Risk concerns. The replacement will ensure the continued safety of residents, improve the overall condition of the development, and ensure compliance with the obligations set out in the Lease.”[15]With the application is a document headed “Purchase Agreement”, sub-headed quote ref L69413/Q1. The address for the works is the Property. It’s from AMS Marlow Ltd. The item is 1No., located at the ‘Third Floor Rear Elevation”. The work is described as “Supply & Install a complete new non Doc L casement window.” Price is £3,678.89 excluding VAT, or £4,414.67 inclusive.[16]Attached to this are the 4No. alternative window materials for a window of the same size and design, one fixed light with two side opening casements. These alternatives are priced respectively ex VAT. Frame No.1 £633.46 “White Casement (B) (Int Bead)”. Frame No.2 £902.85 “Special Foil Casement (Int Bead). Frame No.3 £687.83 “White: Flush Casement (B)(Weld). Frame no.4 £996.29. “Special Foil: Flush Casement (Weld).[17]It’s obvious that only 1No. window is required by the applicant/ client, but the supplier has helpfully provided the quote with 4No. types, depending on the finish quality security etc. elements required. The “Total” sum of the quote of £4,414.67 is simply the automatic total for the items quoted. It is clearly not the cost of the 1No. replacement window installed. Depending on the variation chosen the maximum cost quote for a window, would be just under £1000.[18]The application is accompanied by a letter/ email from Sarah Oborn Senior Heritage Officer, Buckinghamshire Council. She also confirms that there is only ONE window to be replaced and that it does not require Listed Building consent. Respondent’s Case[19]The Tribunal did not receive any objections or other representations from the leaseholders, either through the applicant, or directly. The Law[20]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.[21]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.”[22]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.”[23]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.[24]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[25]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.[26]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.[27]The correspondence showed that the applicant failed to identify the number of leaseholders affected. However by reference to the copy plan on the sample lease attached, there appears to the Tribunal, to be 8No. flats. As the works proposed amount to £1000 plus VAT at most, the Regulatory cap of £250 per leaseholder for the works would allow for up to £2000 including VAT, of building work to carried out. The figure of over £4000 quoted, is simply the arithmetical total sum for all 4No. window designs. These are alternatives. The application and accompanying documents repeatedly refer to 1No. window, only.[28]The applicant may wish read quotations for work more carefully in future to avoid this fruitless exercise. All of these costs for the window, 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. The need for consultation for replaceing 1No. window here does not arise.[29]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. Whether the abortive cost of this fruitless exercise is recoverable from leaseholders is a matter for agreement of the parties or of another Tribunal.[30]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 S20ZA of the Act; in this case, the application is refused. N Martindale FRICS 2 February 2026 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).