Green Tiles, Green Tiles Lane, Denham, Uxbridge, UB9 5HX CAM/00MX/LDC/2025/0695-GREEN-TILES-GREEN-TILES-LANE-DENHAM-UXBRIDGE-UB9-5HX

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No CAM/00MX/LDC/2025/0695-GREEN-TILES-GREEN-TILES-LANE-DENHAM-UXBRIDGE-UB9-5HX

Between

Green Tiles RTM Company LimitedApplicant

All leaseholders of dwellings at the PropertyRespondent

Before

Judge Morgan

Date 13 March 2026

DECISION

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 application form, namely works to decommission and remove water tanks in Block 12A-18. The application

[1]The relevant contributions of the Respondents through the service charge towards the costs of these works would potentially 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.

[2]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.

[3]In this application, the only issue for the tribunal is whether it is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements. This application 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, parties and the leases

[4]The property is described in the application form as being a purpose built block of 25 flats, brick walls, green roof tiles and 3 storeys. The specimen lease provided in the bundle refers to the property being converted into 24 residential flats.

[5]The Applicant is the right to manage company for the property. The Respondents are the leaseholders of the flats in the property. The Landlord of the property is Freehold Management (Traders) Limited.

[6]The bundle contained a copy of the specimen lease for Flat 12a.

[7]In the Lease for Flat 12a:(i) service charge is payable by the Tenant pursuant to clause 3(e)(ii)(A), (B) and (C), this requires payment of the “Lessee’s initial contribution” by equal half yearly instalments in advance and a balancing payment being the “Lessee’s percentage” of the “excess contribution” if “the annual costs exceeds the total of the annual contribution and any unexpended surplus” and if there is an “unexpended surplus” it is to be applied “in or towards the annual cost in the next succeeding or future accounting period or periods”.

(ii) The Landlord’s obligations in respect of services are set out in clause 7: “to perform and observe the obligations and each and every part set out in Part VI of the said Schedule”, the clause contains a carve out for “any damage caused by any defect in the Building or any part thereof or in any fixtures or in the fences roads pipes wires cellar drains sewers or services thereof or in respect of any damage caused by any defect in or repair needed thereto unless and until notice in writing of any such defect or want of repair has been brought to the notice of the Lessor and the Lessor has failed to make good or remedy the same within a reasonable time after the receipt of such notice”. (i) Paragraph 1 of Part VI of the Schedule includes “maintain repair redecorate and renew: - (a) . . . storage tanks, gutters and rainwater pipes of the Building . . . (b) . . . water mains pipes drains . . . in under and upon the Building or any part of the freehold premises and enjoyed or used by the Lessee in common with the Lessees of other parts of the Building”. (ii) The Building is defined as “the freehold property situate at and known as Greentiles, Green Tiles Lane Denham . . . as the same is edged blue” on the plan attached to the Lease (the plan attached to the specimen lease is black and white).

[8]The works to decommission and remove water tanks in Block 12A-18 fall within the list of services contained in Part VI of the Schedule. Procedural history

[9]On 22 December 2025 the tribunal gave amended case management directions (amended at the Applicant’s request to allow additional time for costings to be obtained and provided to leaseholders). The directions included a reply form for any Respondent leaseholder who objected to the application to return to the tribunal and the Applicant by 18 February 2026, indicating whether they wished to have an oral hearing. The tribunal also directed that the Applicant send each of the Respondents the application form, the tribunal’s directions, a clear, concise description of the relevant works, an estimate of the cost of the relevant works and any other evidence relied upon and to confirm to the tribunal that this has been done and the date(s) on which this was done. The bundle contains a letter from the Applicant confirming to the tribunal that it had complied with this direction on 29 January 2026.

[10]The directions provided that this matter would be determined on or after 11 March 2026 based on the documents, without a hearing, unless any party requested one.

[11]Two leaseholders have responded but subsequently their objections were withdrawn. 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

[12]The Applicant has set out in the application form that the works are to decommission / remove water tanks in Block 12A-18 due to their old age and costs associated with the maintenance. The Applicant has set out their case in the application form that they seek dispensation as it has not been possible to obtain a second quotation as this would require commissioning an additional full survey by another contractor, which would be both disproportionate in cost and time. The Applicant states in the application form that a comprehensive survey has already been completed by a contractor familiar with the property and it is considered appropriate that they proceed with the works. The Applicant has confirmed in the application form that the work has not yet been undertaken.

[13]The Applicant has provided in its bundle a provisional estimate quotation dated 26 January 2026 of £42,616 plus VAT. This estimate also gives further details of the proposed works.

[14]The Applicant has provided in its bundle correspondence with two of the Respondents and a letter dated 29 January 2026 to another of the Respondents which refer to the water system for the property as being approximately 90 years old and approaching the end of its useful/serviceable life and setting out that as each year passes the incidence of leaks and flooding continues to increase.

[15]In the email correspondence with one of the Respondents provided in the bundle, the Applicant expanded upon its reasoning setting out that there were practical difficulties with obtaining an additional quotation, the need for a contractor asked to tender to first undertake a comprehensive survey of each tank and its connections into the individual flats before being able to price the works, delaying the process and that it could also increase overall costs to tenants.

[16]The Applicant has also provided in its bundle photographs which were attached to its email correspondence with one of the Respondents contained in its bundle. The Respondents’ position

[17]As noted above, the directions provided for any Respondent who wished to oppose the application for dispensation to complete the reply form attached to the directions and send it to the tribunal and the Applicant.

[18]Two leaseholders responded. One Respondent formally withdrew their objection by email on 17 February 2026 and a copy of this email is contained in the bundle. In respect of the other Respondent who responded by email on 18 February 2026 at 09.20, they were then emailed by the Applicant on 18 February 2026 at 15.34, in this email, a copy of which is contained in the bundle, the Applicant stated that it said on the form that this Respondent had appointed “Flat 6 as your representative, please note that [that Respondent] has already withdrawn his objection. If you’d still like to object, please let me know & I will respond to the below.” No response is contained in the bundle and on the basis of the evidence provided in the bundle the tribunal understands this Respondent has also withdrawn their objection.

[19]On the basis that both objections have been withdrawn, in the circumstances the tribunal concluded that the application was unopposed and no prejudice has been alleged. The Law

[20]Section 20ZA(1) of the 1985 Act provides as follows: “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 or qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.”

[21]In the leading case of Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others

[2013] UKSC 14

[2013] 1 WLR 854

the Supreme Court set out certain principles relevant to section 20ZA. Lord Neuberger stated at [44] that: “it seems to me that the issue on which the [tribunal] should focus when entertaining an application by a landlord under section 20ZA(1) must be the extent, if any, to which the tenants were prejudiced in either respect by the failure of the landlord to comply with the requirements”. The tribunal’s decision

[22]In the circumstances, based on the information provided by the Applicant (as summarised above), there is no evidence before the tribunal that the Respondents are prejudiced by the failure of the Applicant to comply with the consultation requirements and I am satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements in relation to the relevant works.

[23]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.

[24]There was no application to the tribunal for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act (limiting the ability of the landlord to seek their costs of the application as part of the service charge). Name: Judge Morgan Date: 13 March 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 a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. 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. 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).