Flats 36-46 Luna Close, Swindon, Wiltshire SN25 2LZ CHI/00HX/LDC/2019/0051

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No CHI/00HX/LDC/2019/0051

Between

Sovereign Housing Association LimitedApplicant

D Thomson (44)Respondent

Before

Mr D Banfield FRICS

Respondent : D Thomson (44) Representative : for the Applicant

Date 1 August 2019

Property: Flats 36-46 Luna Close, Swindon, Wiltshire SN25 2LZ

Type of application: To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works

DECISION

[14]Although this is an application to dispense with the consultation requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and does not concern whether the costs are reasonable or payable in view of the objection received it is first of all necessary to determine whether such works may be chargeable to the service charge.• Clause 3.1 of the lease requires the lessee to pay the Specified Rent Service Charge and all other monies due…..

• Clause 7.1 (b) “Specified Proportion” is the amount shown in the (1/11th)

• Clause 7.5(a) refers to the relevant expenditure which may be charged to the service charge as: - the costs of and incidental to the performance of the Landlord’s covenants contained in Clauses 5.2 and 5.3 and 5.4.

• Clause 5.3 requires the Landlord to maintain repair redecorate renew…..(a) the roof foundations and main structure of the Building………

[15]The lease is unambiguous in requiring the landlord to maintain the roof and for the lessees to pay their proportionate part. As such either consultation is required or dispensation given.

[16]From the information provided I am satisfied that it was advisable to take prompt action to prevent the possibility of injury from falling building parts or for other damage to occur. As such it would not have been appropriate to incur the delays which complying with the full consultation procedure would have entailed.

[17]With regard to the terms of the objection: -• Lessees are obliged to pay a proportion of the cost of such works by way of service charge as specified in their leases in addition to expenditure on cleaning etc.

• Repairs such as these are not recoverable through insurance.

• Inconvenience caused by the works is not a relevant consideration when determining whether to grant dispensation from consultation.

• The erroneous reference to car park is explained at paragraph 3 above.

[18]No prejudice of the type referred to in the Daejan case referred to at paragraph 10 above has been identified and in these circumstances I am satisfied that the dispensation requested should be given.

[19]In accordance with the above the Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for repairs carried out to the roof on 30 April 2019.

[20]In granting dispensation, the Tribunal makes no determination as to whether any service charge costs are reasonable or payable. D Banfield FRICS 1 August 2019

[1]A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office, which has been dealing with the case. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

[2]If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

[3]The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the appeal is seeking.