Marlborough Park, Pipers Way, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN3 1FG HAV/00HX/LDC/2024/0617

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No HAV/00HX/LDC/2024/0617

Between

Places for People Homes LtdApplicant

58 leaseholders of Tuncliffe Close, Marlborough Park (see Appendix 1)Respondent

Before

Judge R Cooper

Residential Management Group for the Applicant

N/A for the Respondent

Date 15 March 2025

Property: Marlborough Park, Pipers Way, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN3 1FG

Type of application: To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works - section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

DECISION

[1]The Applicant’s application pursuant to s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements is granted without condition.

[2]This dispensation does not affect the Respondents’ rights to make an application to the Tribunal as to the reasonableness or payability of the service charge under s27A and 19 of the 1985 Act. 2 The application

[3]On 23/10/2024 the Tribunal received an application from Residential Management Group on behalf of Places for People Homes Ltd (‘the Applicant’).

[4]The Applicant seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’) from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the Act in respect of qualifying works required to repair the roof of the block containing flats 51-55 Tuncliffe Close, Marlborough Park, Pipers Way, Swindon, SN3 1FG (‘the Premises’).

[5]The Applicant seeks dispensation on the grounds that works were urgently required because of water ingress into Flat 55.

[6]The Respondents to the application are the 58 leaseholders of the units in Tuncliffe Way, a list of whom appears at Appendix 1.

[7]Following directions given on 5/02/2025 the Tribunal received confirmation from the Applicant on 7/03/2025 that no objections had been received to the application. Consideration

[8]The Tribunal considered the application and supporting documents, comprising the lease for flat 55 Tuncliffe Close, the list of Respondents directions, and email correspondence from the Applicant.

[9]This was a determination made on the papers and there was no inspection. No party requested a hearing or inspection, and it was not considered necessary for a fair determination of the issues. Determination and reasons

[10]Having considered the application and totality of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable for dispensation to be granted from the consultation requirements under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’) and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 for the reasons set out below.

[11]The purpose of the statutory consultation process is to ensure that leaseholders are given the fullest opportunity to comment on expenditure for which they will be partly liable to pay.

[12]The relevant law relating to this application is s20ZA of the Act which allows the Tribunal to grant dispensation from that statutory 3 consultation requirement if is satisfied it is reasonable to do so. In considering the application I have borne in mind the principles set down by the Supreme Court in Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson & others

[2013] UKSC 14

[13]In the application, the Applicant describes Marlborough Park, Swindon as a residential development comprising seven ‘blocks’, amongst them Tunnicliffe Close.

[14]Marlborough Park (Phase 1) is said to consist of 205 units (164 flats, 36 houses, 1 maisonette and 4 flats above garages). From the list of respondents provided by the Applicant, Tunnicliffe Close appears to have 58 individual units.

[15]It is said in the application that 51-55 Tunnicliffe Close is a purpose-built block of 5 flats. It is described as having a mixture of exposed brick walls, large areas of external skim over block walls and timber cladding. The roof is described as a composite of sloped and pitched roofs, with an unknown supporting system. It is fitted with solar panels. The block is said to be constructed with concrete floors and a concrete staircase.

[16]The lease for 55 submitted with the application, however, appears to indicate that flat 55 (or Plot 13) is in fact on the second floor of a four-storey block containing 23 flats.

[17]In its application, the Applicant says that works were urgently required because there is water ingress to the bedroom of flat 55 and concerns with the interity of the roof structure as a result of water damage. There were also concerns regarding the wellbeing of the occupant.

[18]The Applicant instructed the site repairs contractor (Target Maintenance) to carry out the necessary works, who recommended that the solar panels be removed. The Applicant is said to have sought quotations from a number of contractors to do so, but only one of the four approached (SolarairUK) was willing to quote and carry out the works. It is said the works have been completed at a cost of £6,700 inclusive of VAT.

[19]In view of the seeming discrepancy between the description of the property in the application and the lease, the Tribunal considered whether the application should be refused on this basis. However, the Tribunal is satisfied from publicly available aerial photographs on Google that the block appears consistent with the plan in the lease and shows a large area of solar panels on the roof immediately above the location of flat 55 on the plan. Furthermore, it appears from the plan that the third floor of the block only contains four units, indicating that flat 55 may indeed be the ‘top floor’ at that end of the block. On 4 balance, the Tribunal concluded that the description of works that the Applicant says were undertaken were not inconsistent with the available information.

[20]The Tribunal is strengthened in that view by the lack of objections to the application. Had the works not been carried out or had the works not been necessary, the Tribunal was satisfied that at least one of the 58 leaseholders would have raised an objection. The Tribunal had issued copies of the application to the 58 leaseholders of Tunnicliffe Close. On 07/03/2025 the Applicant’s representative confirmed by email that no objections to the application had been received.

[21]Having considered the totality of the information available, the Tribunal was satisfied it was reasonable to grant dispensation under s20ZA of the 1985. The application is unopposed, and the Tribunal is satisfied that continued water leakage into flat 55 during a period of consultation may have resulted in damage to the leaseholder’s property and further interfered with their enjoyment of their flat. It may also have led to further structural damage to the roof. There is no evidence suggesting the Respondents would be prejudiced by a failure of the landlord to consult.

[22]The Tribunal considered whether it was appropriate to impose conditions on that grant of dispensation. However, it decided it was not because the works were limited in scope and the Respondents have not incurred any costs in relation to this application as it is unopposed.

[23]The Tribunal, therefore, is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation under s20ZA of the 1985 Act from the s20 consultation requirements, and for that dispensation to be without condition.

[24]This dispensation only relates to the statutory consultation requirement. The Tribunal makes no determination as to the reasonableness of the works or the reasonableness of the costs of the works and whether they are recoverable from the Respondents though the service charges. Those are matters which the Tribunal may consider on an application to the Tribunal under s27A and 19 of the 1985 Act. 5 Note: Appeals

[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 that has been dealing with the case.

[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, and should be sent by email to rpsouthern@justice.gov.uk.

[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.

[4]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 application is seeking. Appendix 1 Picture Living Investments GP LLP – 1, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 44, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Jamie Kerger - 2 Tunnicliffe Close Places for People Homes Ltd. – 3, 6, 9, 11, 15, 20, 23, 24, 52 Tunnicliffe Close Mrs Helen Stinson - 4 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Philip Daniels - 5 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Matthew Sirrelle - 7 Tunnicliffe Close Daniel Grove & Stacie Cooper - 8 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Robert Parry - 10 Tunnicliffe Close Jeremy Peter Frenkel Wolfenden - 12 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Michael Clarke - 16 Tunnicliffe Close Ms Lucy Lloyd - 17 Tunnicliffe Close Miss Zerga Seddik-Khodja - 18 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Graeme Little - 32 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Andrew Deller - 35 Tunnicliffe Close Ms Nataliia Radul & Ms Liudmila Radul - 37 Tunnicliffe Close Mr John Bradley & Mrs Celia Bradley - 38 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Kevin & Mrs Gina Holland - 39 Tunnicliffe Close Sandstorm Films Ltd. - 40 Tunnicliffe Close Jamie Rupert Golding - 41 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Sandip Sandhu - 42 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Zahir Ishani - 43 Tunnicliffe Close Annabel Marie Martin - 45 Tunnicliffe Close Mrs Aimee Bush - 46 Tunnicliffe Close Ms Carol McKinstry - 47 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Paul Sloman - 48 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Sidney & Mrs Lorraine Satchell - 50 Tunnicliffe Close Mr Dale Petrie - 53 Tunnicliffe Close Karl Anthony Kennith Hawkins 59 Tunnicliffe Close