12 Castledine Road, Anerley, London SE20 8PL LON/00AF/LDC/2025/0814

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00AF/LDC/2025/0814

Between

12 Castledine Management LimitedApplicant

The leaseholders at 12 Castledine Road, Anerley, London SE20 8PLRespondent

Before

Judge J P Donegan

Ms Sandra Sharratt (Director) for the Applicant

Date 27 January 2026

DECISION

Decision of the Tribunal(a) The Tribunal grants retrospective dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’) in relation to repairs undertaken to the flat roof of 12 Castledine Road, Anerley, London SE20 8PL (‘the Property’) in June and July 2023.

(b) No conditions are imposed on the grant of dispensation. The application and directions

[1]The applicant is the freeholder of the Property, which is Victorian building that has been converted into three flats. The respondents are the long leaseholders of the three flats. Ms Paula Doyle is the leaseholder of Flat 1, Mr Shervin Dadbin is the leaseholder of Flat 2 and Ms Sandra Sharratt is the leaseholder of Flat 3. Mr Dadbin and Ms Sharratt are directors of the applicant company.

[2]The applicant commenced County Court proceedings against Ms Doyle, claiming service charges for Flat 1. She filed a defence and the case was then transferred to the Tribunal (LON/00AF/LSC/2025/0842). One of the issues in that case is the absence of any section 20 consultation for flat roof repairs undertaken in 2023.

[3]The service charge case was stayed on 10 July 2025 to allow the applicant to make a formal dispensation application under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act. That application was submitted on 29 July 2025 and directions were issued on 01 August 2025.

[4]The directions provided for a paper determination based on written representations. None of the parties has objected to this allocation or requested an oral hearing. The paper determination took place on 26 January 2026.

[5]The relevant statutory provisions are set out in the appendix to this decision. The background

[6]In July 2022, the applicant discovered leaks through the flat roof at the Property causing damage to the ceiling below. It instructed Reliable Maintenance Limited (‘RML’) to investigate. RML produced a short report dated 03 October 2022 that identified various defects including issues with the roof covering, which was cracked in places and not sealed correctly in other places, cracks in the parapet wall and issues with loose flashings.

[7]The applicant obtained three quotations for the work recommended by RML and instructed the cheapest contractor, Garhigh (Waterproofing) Limited (‘GWL’). GWL undertook the flat roof repairs in June and July 2023 at a total cost of £22,062.

[8]The applicant did not undertake a formal section 20 consultation for the repairs but sent several emails to Ms Doyle, notifying her of the proposed work, the quotes and the selection of GWL. The law

[9]The leading authority on dispensation applications is the Supreme Court’s decision in Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson

[2013] UKSC 14

, which held that the main, and normally, sole question for the Tribunal is the real prejudice to the tenants flowing from the landlord’s breach of the consultation requirements. The financial consequences for the landlord are not relevant, and the Tribunal may grant dispensation on such conditions as it sees fit provided that any such conditions are appropriate in their nature and effect. The legal burden of proof is on the landlord but the factual burden of proving some relevant prejudice is on the tenants. The grounds of the application

[10]The grounds are contained in the Tribunal application. In brief, the applicant’s case is:(a) the flat roof repairs were essential,

(b) three quotes were obtained and it selected the lowest,

(d) the failure to undertake a section 20 consultation was an unintentional oversight, and

(e) it engaged with Ms Doyle by notifying her of the intention to obtain quotes and the amounts of those quotes.

[11]Paragraph 2 of the directions gave the respondents an opportunity to object to the dispensation application by completing and returning reply forms and serving statements, setting out their grounds of opposition, by 26 August 2025. No objections have been received by the Tribunal. This is unsurprising in the case of Mr Dadbin and Ms Sharratt, given they are directors of the applicant company. Ms Doyle belatedly sent an email to the Tribunal case officer on 28 October 2025, requesting extra time to object to the application. The case officer responded the same day, explaining that an application should be made on form Order 1. No such application has been made. The Tribunal’s decision

[12]The Tribunal grants dispensation for the flat roof repairs undertaken by GWL in June and July 2023. No conditions are imposed on the grant of dispensation. Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision

[13]The Tribunal accepts the repairs were essential and the absence of a formal consultation was unintentional. There was partial compliance with section 20 in that the applicant obtained three quotes and informed Ms Doyle of the proposed work and the quotes.

[14]None of the respondents have contested this application, identified any prejudice that might arise from the grant of dispensation or proposed any terms as a condition of granting dispensation. The factual burden of proving some relevant prejudice is on the respondents.

[15]Having regard to the particular facts of this case and the guidance in Daejan, it is reasonable to dispense with the full section 20 consultation requirements without any conditions.

[16]This decision does not address the cost of the flat roof repairs or whether the respondents are liable to contribute to this cost via their service charges. Name: Judge J P Donegan Date: 27 January 2026 Rights of appeal

[1]By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

[2]If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

[3]The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

[4]If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

[5]The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

[6]If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Appendix of relevant legislation Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 20 Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements(1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate tribunal.

(2) In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement.

(3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount.

(5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.

(6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount.

(7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined. Section 20ZA Consultation requirements: supplementary (1) Where an application is made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination to dispense with all of 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. (2) In section 20 and this section – “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months. Section 27A Liability to pay service charges: jurisdiction (1) An application may be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to - (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) An application may also be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs and, if it would, as to - (a) the person by whom it would be payable, (b) the person to whom it would be payable, (c) the amount which would be payable, (d) the date at or by which it would be payable, and (e) the manner in which it would be payable. (4) No application under subsection (1) or (3) may be made in respect of a matter which - (a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment.