Pacific Heights, Suez Way, Saltdean, Sussex, BN2 8AX HAV/00ML/LDC/2025/0781

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No HAV/00ML/LDC/2025/0781

Between

Grand Ocean View Management Company LimitedApplicant

All LeaseholdersRespondent

Before

I R Perry FRICS

Eddisons Commercial Limited for the Applicant

Date 9 March 2026

DECISION

[1]The Applicant is granted retrospective dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act in relation to replacement of doors in the communal areas and individual doors to demised premises which urgently needed addressing to protect the property and occupants from fire. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of the works are reasonable or payable. Background

[2]The Applicant seeks retrospective dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the Landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act. The application was received on 3 February 2025.

[3]Pacific Heights forms part of the Grand Ocean Estate which is a development of 294 apartments. The particular block is said to have been constructed around 15 years ago and comprises 44 apartments.

[4]The Applicant’s Agent explains that:- “Following a visit from the Fire Officer to site after a Fire Risk Assessment and subsequent fire door survey, it became apparent [sic] that there were serious issues with the doors. To avoid the suggested 'Waking Watch' it was agreed with the Fire Officer that the Management Company would start a Section 20 Process and consultation for the required works. The likely impact for each block for the Waking Watch' was estimated at £80,000 per annum until the remdiation [sic] works had been carried out for the combustible [sic] materials. Section 20 was commenced to advise all residents that the fire doors to the communal areas and the demised apartments had issues which urgently needed addressing. Quotes were requested from specialist companies who could certify the works. Two companies came back and a Statement of Expenses was issued. The correspondence was sent to Hyde Housing as the Head Leaseholders of the properties, as neither Management Company or Managing Agent had been given individual leaseholder information. Historically, communications have always been sent to Hyde Housing for each individual property, as previously instructed and to do otherwise, had never been flagged by Hyde.”

[5]Dispensation is sought because: “…….the subtenants were not served indivdially [sic] or included in the consultation. This was due to all previous communications, Service Charge Demands and Notices were served on Hyde Housing for each property. During a recent tribunal CHI/00ML/LSC/2024/0104 it was discovered that the subtenants should have been written to directly rather than relying on Hyde Housing to forward communications. Hyde Housing had never issued ownership details to the Management Co and never suggested otherwise, that the established line of communication was incorrect.”

[6]The Tribunal issued Directions on 8th January 2026 listing the steps to be taken by the parties in preparation for the determination of the dispute, if any.

[7]The Directions stated that the Tribunal would determine the application on the papers received unless a party objected in writing to the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of receipt of the Directions. No party has objected to the application being determined on the papers.

[8]The only issue for the Tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application is not about the proposed costs of the works, and whether they are recoverable from the leaseholders as service charges or the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022. The leaseholders have the right to make a separate application to the Tribunal under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to determine the reasonableness of the costs, and the contribution payable through the service charges. The Law

[9]Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) and the related Regulations provide that where the lessor undertakes qualifying works with a cost of more than £250 per lease, the relevant contribution of each lessee (jointly where more than one under any given lease) will be limited to that sum unless the required consultations have been undertaken or the requirement has been dispensed with by the Tribunal. An application may be made retrospectively.

[10]The relevant section of the Act reads as follows: S.20 ZA Consultation requirements: 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.

[11]The appropriate approach to be taken by the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Daejan Investment Limited v Benson et al

[2013] UKSC 14

[12]The leading judgment of Lord Neuberger explained that a Tribunal should focus on the question of whether the lessee will be, or had been, prejudiced in either paying where that was not appropriate or in paying more than appropriate because the failure of the lessor to comply with the regulations. The requirements were held to give practical effect to those two objectives and were a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

[13]The factual burden of demonstrating prejudice falls on the lessee. The lessee must identify what would have been said if able to engage in a consultation process. If the lessee advances a credible case for having been prejudiced, the lessor must rebut it. The Tribunal should be sympathetic to the lessee(s).

[14]Where the extent, quality and cost of the works were in no way affected by the lessor’s failure to comply, Lord Neuberger said as follows: I find it hard to see why the dispensation should not be granted (at least in the absence of some very good reason): in such a case the tenants would be in precisely the position that the legislation intended them to be- i.e. as if the requirements had been complied with.

[15]The main, indeed normally, the sole question, as described by Lord Neuberger, for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether, or not, the lessee will be or has been caused relevant prejudice by a failure of the Applicant to undertake the consultation prior to the major works and so whether dispensation in respect of that should be granted.

[16]The question is one of the reasonableness of dispensing with the process of consultation provided for in the Act, not one of the reasonableness of the charges of works arising or which have arisen.

[17]If dispensation is granted, that may be on terms.

[18]There have been subsequent Decisions of the higher Courts and Tribunals of assistance in the application of the Decision in Daejan but none are relied upon or therefore require specific mention in this Decision. Consideration

[19]The Directions attached a reply form for the Respondents to complete to confirm whether they agreed with the application or not and if opposed, to provide a statement setting out why they oppose.

[20]On 20th January 2026 the Landlord’s Agent advised the Tribunal that the residents had been sent the court documentation and on 23rd February 2026 the Agent confirmed that no objections had been received. No replies were directly received by the Tribunal.

[21]Having considered the application and prior to undertaking this determination, the Tribunal is satisfied that a determination on the papers remains appropriate, given that the application remains unchallenged.

[22]The reason why dispensation from consultation requirements is said to be required is that these works involved the replacement of doors in the communal areas and individual doors to demised premises had issues which urgently needed addressing to protect the property and occupants from fire.

[23]The Tribunal is satisfied that the qualifying works were of an urgent nature and note that there has been no objection to the dispensation of the consultation requirements from any of the Lessees.

[24]None of the Lessees have therefore asserted that any prejudice has been caused to them. The Tribunal finds that nothing different would be done or achieved in the event of a full consultation with the Lessees, except for the potential delay and potential problems.

[25]The Tribunal finds that the Respondents have not suffered any prejudice by the failure of the Applicant to follow the full consultation process.

[26]The Tribunal consequently finds that it is reasonable to dispense with all of the formal consultation requirements in respect of the major works to the building as described in this Decision.

[27]This Decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of replacing doors as outlined at paragraph 4. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs are payable or reasonable. If a Lessee wishes to challenge the payability or reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.

[28]In reaching its decision the Tribunal has taken account of the fact that no party has objected to the application. The leaseholders have had opportunity to raise any objection, and they have not done so.

[29]As a condition of dispensation, the Applicant is required to send a copy of this decision to all leaseholders. 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 to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case by email at 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.

[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.