Hawthorne Court, Hawthorne Way, Stanwell, TW19 7NQ CHI/43UH/LDC/2020/0049
DECISION
[15]The Applicant’s application to disregard the Respondents’ statements is refused. The Tribunal has the power under Rule 8(2)(a) to waive any Direction which it so does with regard to the content and form of the Respondents’ statements.[16]Dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 of the Act may be given where the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.[17]The guidance given by the case of Daejan v Benson provides guidance to the Tribunal when considering the issues raised by all parties.[18]In situations where Qualifying Long Term Agreements are in place a Lessees right to nominate a contractor is not available and consultation under S.20 is limited to commenting on the proposed works.[19]As indicated in the Tribunal’s Directions the sole issue before it is whether Lessees have been prejudiced by the lack of consultation. No determination is made as to whether the costs are reasonable or recoverable, that being a matter for an application under S.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.[20]The Respondents refer to the failure by the Applicants to serve a S.20 Notice in time. That is accepted and it is for that reason that the application to dispense has been made.[21]Daejan and Benson makes no distinction between emergency and non-urgent works, the only issue being one of prejudice.[22]There is no question of “free rein” being given with regard to costs for the reasons referred to in paragraph 19 above.[23]Consultation, albeit at a late stage has been offered to the Respondents in this application and was carried out in full with the other 14 lessees.[24]For the reasons above I am not satisfied that satisfactory evidence of prejudice as identified in the Daejan v Benson case referred to above has been provided and as such the Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the works referred to in the Notice Intention dated 18 December 2019.[25]Dispensation is granted subject to none of the costs of this application, being the result of the Applicant’s error, are charged to the Lessees by way of service charge or any other means.[26]In granting dispensation in respect of part of the Application the Tribunal makes no determination as to whether any service charge costs are reasonable or payable. D Banfield FRICS 30 September 2020[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 RPSouthern@justice.gov.uk. 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.