14-21 Unicorn Yard, Appleyards Mill, Norwich, NR3 3AL CAM/33UG/LDC/2025/0653
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 respect of external redecoration and timber repair works completed in 2025, as described below. The Applicant must by 6 February 2026 send a copy of this decision to each of the Respondents. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 2[1]The Applicant freeholder applied for dispensation with the statutory consultation requirements in respect of works initially described as “Windowsill remediations/redecoration”. Any contributions from the Respondents through the service charge towards the cost of these works would be limited to £250 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, were complied with or are dispensed with by the tribunal.[1]The Applicant seeks such dispensation from the tribunal, under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act. The tribunal has jurisdiction to grant such dispensation if satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. 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 any issue of whether any service charges for the costs of the works will be reasonable or payable. Background[2]In their application form dated 16 July 2025, the Applicant said the relevant works were originally instructed following direct liaison with Respondent leaseholders who reported deterioration to the external windowsills. It appears the Applicant did not arrange a consultation exercise because they expected the costs to be less than the current threshold of £250 for any leaseholder. Upon the commissioning of a contractor to carry out the necessary remedial works and upon erection of access equipment, the window frames themselves were found to be in a poor state of repair requiring further works to, not only make safe the window frames, but to ensure weather proofing. The relevant works commenced on 14 July 2025.[3]On 13 October 2025, the tribunal gave case management directions for these dispensation proceedings. The directions required the Applicant to (amongst other things) write to each of the Respondent leaseholders with copies of the application form and details (including a clear description, and an estimate of the costs, of the relevant works), any other evidence relied upon and the directions. The Applicant confirms they did so on 21 October 2025 in accordance with the directions.[4]In their correspondence to the Respondent leaseholders dated 21 October 2025, the Applicant described the relevant works as external redecoration and timber repair works, saying these were essential to prevent more costly and extensive remedial works in the future and included “repairs to the external timber elements of the windows and windowsills”. They said that had they “delayed the works to allow for the full statutory consultation period, this would likely have resulted in: Significant increased costs; further deterioration of the timber and windowsills; a greater financial burden on leaseholders.”[5]The Applicant stated that following liaison with Respondent leaseholders, two quotations had been obtained with the lowest 3 quotation of £7,884 (inclusive of VAT) being accepted. The alternative quote had been £16,120 plus VAT. The Applicant advised that these works were funded from the external decoration reserve fund and that no additional payment was being sought from leaseholders in respect of these relevant works. To further limit costs to lessees, the Managing Agents, Watsons, did not apply its standard 10% management fee which would normally be sought if the works had been procured through a standard consultation process.[6]The directions noted above required any person who opposed the application to respond by 3 November 2025, giving a reply form for them to use. The directions provided that, unless any party requested a hearing or the tribunal decided a hearing was necessary, the tribunal would decide the matter based on the papers produced by the parties, without a hearing. The Applicant confirmed that no replies, statements, observations or other documents from any of the Respondents had been received to oppose the application, or request a hearing, or at all.[7]In the circumstances, we treat the application as unopposed and, under rule 31(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the parties are taken to have consented to this matter being determined without a hearing. This determination is based on the documents in the bundle prepared by the Applicant in accordance with the case management directions. On reviewing these documents, we considered that a hearing was not necessary. Review[8]The documents in the bundle include the letter noted above from the Applicant’s Managing Agent, Watsons, to the Respondent leaseholders, dated 21 October 2025. This refers to earlier liaison and explains their retrospective dispensation application to the tribunal with a description of the works, procurement of works and costs as set out above. The letter also refers to “overwhelmingly positive” feedback received from leaseholders following completion of the works and states that the works have improved the overall appearance of the property and prevented further deterioration.[9]This application was not opposed by the Respondents, who have not challenged the information provided by the Applicant, identified any prejudice they might suffer because of the non-compliance with the consultation requirements, given any other reasons why dispensation should not be granted or in these proceedings asked for or provided any other information. In the circumstances, based on the information provided by the Applicant (as summarised above), we are satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements in relation to the relevant works.[10]As noted above, this decision does not determine whether the cost of these works is reasonable or payable as service charges under the leases, 4 only whether the consultation requirements should be dispensed with in respect of them.[11]The tribunal determines under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with all the consultation requirements in respect of the external redecoration and timber repair works, as described above.[12]There was no application to the tribunal for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. Name: Judge Virginia Lloyd Date: 21 January 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 Firsttier 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).