1-10 Badminton Court, Woodberry Grove, London, N4 1SH LON/00AM/LDC/2025/0802

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00AM/LDC/2025/0802

Between

London Borough of HackneyApplicant

Mr Shane CashinRespondent

Before

Tribunal Judge I Mohabir

Date 4 November 2025

Property: Grove, London, N4 1SH

DECISION

[1]The Applicant seeks an order pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) for dispensation with the consultation requirements in respect of remediation works at the property known as 1-10 Badminton Court, Woodberry Grove, London, N4 1SH (“the property”).

[2]The property is described as being a purpose-built block of flats, constructed in 1950, is five storeys high and features brick and concrete construction. It comprises 10 units, with one being a leasehold property and the other nine designated for general needs housing. Each floor level contains two flats. A central staircase serves the ground to third floors. Flats and lift doors open directly onto this staircase, except for lower ground floor flats, which have external access. The staircase goes to the ground floor and opens to the front. The staircase has windows on all levels and a partially grilled roof light on the top landing. A roadway under one end of the ground floor provides access to the rear car park and courtyard. The main ground floor entrance is accessible from the street via a platform above the path leading to the lower ground flats.

[3]In the application, the scope of the proposed works is described as “including emergency underpinning to the building's foundation and structural repairs to the rear brickwork elevation. A gas leak, caused by a structural defect, necessitates the acceleration of the building's structural remediation works. The proposed underpinning works will involve increasing the foundation width and depth of the flank wall with reinforced in-situ concrete mix. This is crucial for maintaining the building's structural integrity and ensuring the differential settlement has ceased. The underpinning will be carried out in short sections to avoid further disturbance to the building. Additionally, a low voltage cable running close to the flank wall within the grounds will need to be diverted. Separate arrangements will be made for the gas works which will commence subsequent to the completion of structural stabilisation. Further damage to the building's structure could exacerbate the gas leak by placing additional stress on the gas riser. To prevent exacerbating the subsidence problems affecting the block, the trees growing at the front and rear of the building must be removed. Repair works will need to be undertaken to the front and rear brickwork walls where significant cracking has taken place. Full height scaffolding will be required at both the front and rear for these repairs”.

[4]The proposed works are to be carried out under an existing qualifying long-term agreement in respect of which the Respondent has already been consulted. Dispensation is being sought for the proposed works under the qualifying long-term agreement which would require further consultation under Schedule 3 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

[5]The Applicant states that the works are scheduled to begin on 30th June 2025, with an expected duration of approximately 10 weeks, subject to no unforeseen circumstances. Due to the urgent nature of the required works, it was not possible to undertake section 20 consultation with the Respondent prior to the works commencing. Nevertheless, the Applicant wrote to the Respondent on 8 July 2025 informing him of the proposed works and the need for them.

[6]The Tribunal, therefore, proceeds on the assumption that the works have since been carried out and the Applicant is seeking retrospective dispensation. The total estimated expenditure to be incurred by the council in connection with the proposed works is £59,764.47.

[7]By an application dated 11 July 2025, the Applicant applied seeking dispensation for the proposed works. On 18 September 2025, the Tribunal issued Directions requiring the Applicant to serve the Respondent with a copy of the application by 26 September 2025, which was done on 22 September 2025 by first class post. The Respondent was, therefore, deemed served on24 September 2025 and was directed to respond to the application stating whether he objected to it in any way.

[8]The Respondent has not done so. Relevant Law

[9]This is set out in the Appendix annexed hereto. Decision

[10]As directed, the Tribunal’s determination “on the papers” took place on 4 November 2025 and was based solely on the documentary evidence filed by the Applicant. As stated earlier, no objections had been received from the Respondent, nor has he filed any evidence.

[11]The relevant test to the applied in an application such as this has been set out in the Supreme Court decision in Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson & Ors

[2013] UKSC 14

where it was held that the purpose of the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Act was to ensure that tenants were protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than was appropriate. In other words, a tenant should suffer no prejudice in this way.

[12]The issue before the Tribunal was whether dispensation should be granted in relation to the requirement to carry out statutory consultation with the leaseholders regarding the proposed works. The Tribunal is not concerned about the actual cost that has been incurred.

[13]The Tribunal granted the application for the following main reasons:(a) The Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent had been served with the application and the evidence in support and there has been no objection from him. The Tribunal attached significant weight to this. In other words, this is an unopposed application and the evidence presented to the Tribunal is unchallenged by the Respondent. In addition, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent had been informed of the proposed works by the Applicant on 8 July 2025 and the need for them. Again, no response or objection was made by him.

(b) The Tribunal was satisfied that the proposed works works were required on an urgent basis for the reasons given by the Applicant. The Applicant’s unchallenged evidence was that the structural underpinning of the property was necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the building and to prevent any further subsidence occurring. Furthermore, the failure to carry out the remedial work risked exacerbating the gas leak by placing additional stress on the gas riser. The potential health and safety risk to the occupants in the property is obvious.

(c) Importantly, the real prejudice to the Respondent would be in the cost of the work and he has the statutory protection of section 19 of the Act, which preserves his right to challenge the actual costs incurred by making a separate service charge application under section 27A of the Act.

[14]The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Respondent was not being prejudiced by the Applicant’s failure to consult, and the application was granted as sought.

[15]It should be noted that in granting this part of the application, the Tribunal makes no finding that the scope and cost of the repairs are reasonable. Name: Tribunal Judge Mohabir Date: 4 November 2025 Rights of appeal 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).