Flats 1-3 Bank Chambers, Radlett, Herts, WD7 7AB : CAM/26UE/LDC/2025/0617 CAM/26UE/LDC/2025/0617
[419]The work in the invoice: “Leak into ground floor flat, remove courses oftiles around the dormer and roof to expose upstands, lead flashing andremove damaged layer of tile and batten. Remove all black tiles andreplace them with matching tiles. Remove flashings/ clear off this sectionof flat roof above leak circa 8sqm and overlay with new 4mm torch onfelt, create 250mm min upstands around dormer and roof section, installnew breathable felt to area and new batten/install new lead flashingwhere needed and using new tiles where required and pre used tileswhich are sufficient to be refitted. Clear all rubbish from site…. Total£4730 +20% VAT £946.”20. The landlord’s agent stated that they had notified leaseholders of theapplication and sent copies of the documents per the Directions, on 1 April2025.Respondent’s Case21. The applicant had identified 3No. residential leaseholders of the 3 flats.However there is no evidence that they provided their identities or contactaddresses, to the Tribunal from whom the service charge would eventuallybe recovered and had been identified as the potential respondents. Theapplicant did not confirm that there had been no objections from anyleaseholder.22. The Tribunal did not receive any objections or other representations fromthe leaseholders, either through the applicant, or directly.The Law23. S.18 (1) of the Act provides that a service charge is an amount payable by atenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent, which is payablefor services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance orlandlord’s costs of management, and the whole or part of which varies ormay vary according to the costs incurred by the landlord. S.20 providesfor the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutoryconsultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirementsapply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250can be recovered from a tenant in respect of such works unless theconsultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensedwith.24. Dispensation is dealt with by S.20 ZA of the Act which provides:-“Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation tribunalfor a determination to dispense with all or any of theconsultation requirements in relation to any qualifying worksor qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the 5determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense withthe requirements.”25. The consultation requirements for qualifying works under qualifying longterm agreements are set out in Schedule 3 of the Service Charges(Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 as follows:-1(1) The landlord shall give notice in writing of his intention tocarry out qualifying works –(a) to each tenant; and(b) where a recognised tenants’ association represents someor all of the tenants, to the association.(2) The notice shall –(a) describe, in general terms, the works proposed to be carriedout or specify the place and hours at which[64]Where the landlord receives observations to which (inaccordance with paragraph 3) he is required to have regard, heshall, within 21 days of their receipt, by notice in writing to theperson by whom the observations were made state his response tothe observations.Tribunal’s Decision26. The scheme of the provisions is designed to protect the interests ofleaseholders and whether it is reasonable to dispense with any particularrequirements in an individual case must be considered in relation to thescheme of the provisions and its purpose.27. The Tribunal must have a cogent reason for dispensing with theconsultation requirements, the purpose of which is that leaseholders whomay ultimately pay the bill are fully aware of what works are beingproposed, the cost thereof and have the opportunity to nominatecontractors where there is no public procurement. The correspondenceshowed that the applicant complied generally with Directions.28. The terms of this Dispensation from the requirements ofSection 20, are:29. That this only covers the work set out in the application form. No otherdocuments detailing the extent, quality, or price of the works being carriedout and/or to be undertaken in respect of the works to remedy this roofdefect at the Property other than the quote and matching invoice from oneand the same contractor, as provided to the Tribunal.30. No dispensation for any prior report, nor ancillary work before or afterwhichever quote or estimate was accepted by the applicant, is included inthis dispensation. In this case only one contractor was contacted by theapplicant and provided the work specifications and the price. This coststill remains subject to potential subsequent challenge by any respondentleaseholder, both of the item itself and/or the amount reasonably payable,in the usual way. Other than this no other items are included givendispensation because they were not specifically sought. Those other costsincluding any professional fees associated with the work will be subject tothe annual cap of £250 per leaseholder for a contract for worksrechargeable under a service charge or to a further application fordispensation if required. This is because they do not form part of thisapplication for dispensation.31. The applicant will meet all of its costs arising from the making anddetermination of this application. However these costs may be recoveredfrom any leaseholder as service charge and/ or as an administrative charge 7if the lease of each unit allows for it, subject to the usual scope forleaseholder challenge to its reasonableness and payability.32. In making its determination of this application, it does notconcern the issue of whether any service charge costs arereasonable or indeed payable by the leaseholders. TheTribunal’s determination is limited to this application fordispensation of consultation requirements under S20ZA of theAct; in this case, on terms.N Martindale FRICS 8 May 2025 8Rights of appealBy rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure