Edward Court, 16 The Esplanade, Weymouth, Dorset, DT4 8DT CHI/19UJ/LDC/2023/0025
DECISION
[27]I am satisfied that dispensation should be granted to the Applicant to the roof as set out in paragraph 4 above.[28]I make clear in making this determination I make no findings as to whether the works or the costs of the same are matters which can be recovered as service charge costs from any leaseholder.[29]I make this decision on the basis I am satisfied that there is an urgent need for works to be undertaken. One flat (Flat 8) is being affected by water ingress. I am satisfied that such works are urgently required and it is appropriate for such works to be urgently undertaken without a statutory consultation being undertaken.[30]I am supported in my findings by the fact that only Mr King objected to the application and he told me at the hearing that he accepts the works are required. He did not challenge that repairs to the roof are required and that these may be considered urgent.[31]I have considered whether or not Mr King has suffered any prejudice by my granting dispensation and if so what conditions if any should be attached. I am satisfied that he will not suffer any prejudice by my granting dispensation. Mr King’s complaint is that essentially he has been adversely affected by the Applicant not undertaking works he believes are required to prevent damage to his two units. This is a separate matter in my judgment and Mr King must take his own advice as to what remedies may be open to him. I make clear I make no findings on the same but I am satisfied it is not a relevant consideration for me to take account of in this instance case in granting dispensation.[32]I do however record that it was accepted by Mrs Swann that it may be certain repairs are required. She referred to various issues having to be considered including whether or not the Applicant was responsible for the same.[33]Mrs Swann invites the Tribunal to order that Mr King should pay for the Tribunal fees paid by the Applicant. She suggests a hearing was only required because of his objection and if I grant dispensation the Applicant should recover the tribunal fees paid.[34]I decline to make such an order. The mechanism for dispensation exists to give leaseholders an opportunity to express their views when works are to be undertaken without the strict consultation requirements being adhered to. Mr King has engaged with this process. Whilst I have found his grounds for objection are not matters which prevent me granting dispensation (or show any prejudice upon him) in my judgment a Tribunal should be slow to order a leaseholder to refund fees. To do so would deter leaseholders from expressing their views on such applications. The intention is that leaseholders are afforded opportunity to put forward their case. I am also cogent that in this case it is accepted by the Applicant that other works which Mr King has been seeking it is accepted do need to be undertaken. The points he raised cannot therefore be said to have no merit.[35]Taking account of all I have heard I am satisfied that my discretion as to costs should be exercised such that no order is made. RIGHTS OF APPEAL[1]A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to rpsouthern@justice.gov.uk[2]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.[3]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.