Alderton Court, West Parade, Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex TN39 3HF CHI/21UG/LDC/2019/0014
DECISION
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for remedial works to the lifts carried out between 10 January – 11 February 2019. In granting dispensation, the Tribunal makes no determination as to whether any service charge costs are reasonable or payable. Background[1]The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the Act.[2]The Applicant explains that in late November 2018 two of the three lifts broke down. A replacement controller was required and ordered from the lift maintenance contractor, without seeking alternative quotations or otherwise consulting the lessees as required by section 20. The remedial works were carried out between 10 January – 11 February 2019. The Applicant asserts that normal consultation was not possible due to the emergency nature of the works, and that it was not feasible to obtain alternative quotations.[3]The Tribunal made Directions on 21 February 2019 requiring the Applicant to send a copy of the application and the Tribunal’s Directions to each lessee. Attached to the Directions was a form for the lessees to return to the Tribunal indicating whether the application was agreed with, whether a written statement was to be sent to the applicant and whether an oral hearing was required.[4]The Directions noted that those parties not returning the form and those agreeing to the application would be removed as Respondents[5]No replies were received and the lessees have therefore been removed as Respondents as previously indicated.[6]No requests have been received for an oral hearing and the application is therefore determined on the papers received in accordance with Rule 31 of the Tribunal’s procedural rules.[7]The only issue for the Tribunal is if it is reasonable to dispense with any statutory consultation requirements. This decision does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. The Law[8]The relevant section of the Act reads as follows: 20ZA Consultation requirements: a. (1) Where an application is made to a Leasehold Valuation 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.[9]The matter was examined in some detail by the Supreme Court in the case of Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson. In summary the Supreme Court noted the following b. The main question for the Tribunal when considering how to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with section 20ZA (1) is the real prejudice to the tenants flowing from the landlord’s breach of the consultation requirements. c. The financial consequence to the landlord of not granting a dispensation is not a relevant factor. The nature of the landlord is not a relevant factor. d. Dispensation should not be refused solely because the landlord seriously breached, or departed from, the consultation requirements. e. The Tribunal has power to grant a dispensation as it thinks fit, provided that any terms are appropriate. f. The Tribunal has power to impose a condition that the landlord pays the tenants’ reasonable costs (including surveyor and/or legal fees) incurred in connection with the landlord’s application under section 20ZA (1). g. The legal burden of proof in relation to dispensation applications is on the landlord. The factual burden of identifying some “relevant” prejudice that they would or might have suffered is on the tenants. h. The court considered that “relevant” prejudice should be given a narrow definition; it means whether non-compliance with the consultation requirements has led the landlord to incur costs in an unreasonable amount or to incur them in the provision of services, or in the carrying out of works, which fell below a reasonable standard, in other words whether the non-compliance has in that sense caused prejudice to the tenant. i. The more serious and/or deliberate the landlord's failure, the more readily a Tribunal would be likely to accept that the tenants had suffered prejudice. j. Once the tenants had shown a credible case for prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it. Evidence[10]In their formal submission the applicant describes itself as residents’ management company with 28 leasehold flats and 28 company members 24 of whom contribute to the costs of the three lifts in three of the four blocks.[11]The circumstances are as described in paragraph 2 above and correspondence from leaseholders in November 2018 regarding the need for repairs to be carried out are included in the bundle. Determination[12]Clearly repairs to return the lifts to service were required urgently. No objections have been received from the Lessees and no prejudice of the type referred to in paragraph 9 has been identified.[13]In these circumstances I am satisfied that the dispensation requested should be given.[14]In accordance with the above the Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for remedial works to the lifts carried out between 10 January – 11 February 2019.[15]In granting dispensation, the Tribunal makes no determination as to whether any service charge costs are reasonable or payable. D Banfield FRICS 25 April 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.