Bird in Hand Court, 291-293 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EL LON/00AH/LDC/2025/0842

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00AH/LDC/2025/0842

Between

The Bird in Hand Croydon Ltd c/o Uniq Block ManagementApplicant

The 6 leaseholders in accordance with the schedule attached to the applicationRespondent

Before

Mrs S Phillips MRICS, Valuer

Date 2 December 2025

Property: Bird in Hand Court, 291-293 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EL

Type of application: Dispensation from statutory consultant requirements

DECISION

The Tribunal grants the application for dispensation from statutory consultation in respect of the subject works, namely the additional works identified during roof repair works at the Property. The applicant should place a copy of this decision together with an explanation of the leaseholders’ appeal rights on its website (if any) within seven days of receipt and maintain it there for at least three months, with a sufficiently prominent link to both on its home page. It should also display copies in a prominent position in the common parts of the Property. This decision does not affect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction upon any future application to make a determination under section 27A of the Act in respect of the reasonableness and/or the cost of the work. The Application

[1]The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) for dispensation from consultation in respect of additional works that were discovered when undertaking remedial works on the roof at the Property. When repairs to a section of the roof related to the balcony floor covering for Flat 5 and a section of flat roofing due to water ingress to Flat 1 were undertaken, additional items were identified which included: a) Installation of a liquid non-slip covering to avoid future leaks and ease of maintenance. b) When a core sample was taken, it was identified that the whole section of the roof had to be removed and all flat boarding needed replacing. c) The decking was not able to be retained and reused and required replacing in its entirety.

[2]The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003 provide that consultation requirements are triggered if the landlord plans to carry out qualifying works which would result in the contribution of any tenant being more than £250. The Applicant states that the cost of the works the subject of the application exceed this threshold.

[3]By directions dated 2 October 2025 (the “directions”) issued by the tribunal, they directed the Applicant to prepare a statement of case, provide reasoning for the application and provide any documentation the Applicant wished to rely upon for the application. The tribunal also directed that the Applicant send each of the leaseholders the application, the tribunal’s directions, the Applicant’s statement of case and display the same in the common parts of the Property, confirming to the tribunal that it had done so. The Applicant confirmed to the tribunal on 10 October 2025 that it had complied with this direction.

[4]The directions required any leaseholder who opposed, or positively supported, the application that they should tell the tribunal. If they opposed the application, they should send the tribunal and the applicant’s representative a statement responding to the application together with any documents they wished to rely on. The tribunal received no responses from the leaseholders.

[5]The directions provided that the tribunal would decide the matter on the basis of written submissions unless any party requested a hearing. No such request has been made. The applicant’s case

[6]The Applicant is the landlord of the Property. The Applicant’s Representative, the managing agent, submitted an application within which it explained that a section 20 consultation had taken place between 28 October 2024 and 25 April 2025 relating to roof works that were required. Once those works had commenced it was identified that additional works were required which were not covered by this consultation. Those additional items included the items set out in paragraph 1 above.

[7]The Applicant advised in their application that the main concern was an increase in costs should the repairs not take place now whilst the scaffolding was in place as well as further damage to the property by continued water ingress.

[8]In an email provided to residents on 10 October 2025, the Landlord advised leaseholders of the additional works that had been identified and that dispensation from the consultation requirements would be sought from the Tribunal. At the date of this decision the Tribunal are aware that the works have now been completed. The Respondents’ case

[9]There were no responses from the Respondents for the Tribunal to consider. Determination and Reasons

[10]Section 20ZA(1) of the Act provides: “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 whole purpose of section 20ZA is to permit a landlord to dispense with the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Act if the tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable for them to be dispensed with.

[12]The Tribunal has taken account the decision in Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others

[2013] UKSC 14

in reaching its decision.

[13]There is no evidence before the tribunal that the respondents were prejudiced by the failure of the Applicant to comply with the consultation requirements. There is evidence that the Applicant had complied with a consultation process for the roof works but that it was additional elements that were later discovered that were not captured by this. The tribunal is therefore satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to the replacement of the emergency call out and fire systems.

[14]Whether the works are payable under the terms of the lease, or if the works have been carried out to a reasonable standard or at a reasonable cost are not matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the tribunal in relation to this present application. This decision does not affect the tribunal’s jurisdiction upon any future application to make a determination under section 27A of the Act in respect of the reasonableness, payability and /or cost of the works. Chairman: Mrs S Phillips MRICS Date: 2 December 2025 APPEAL PROVISIONS These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any request for full reasons should be made within a month. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.