143 Nelson Road, London, N8 9RR: LON/00AP/LDC/2019/0066 LON/00AP/LDC/2019/0066

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00AP/LDC/2019/0066

Between

143 Nelson Road Ltd.Applicant

application.Respondent

Before

Ms. A. Hamilton-Farey

Mr. Andrew Boyd. Various leaseholders as per the for the Applicant

In person. Under S.20ZA of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985. The landlord for the Respondent

Venue 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LR

Date 17 June 2019

Property: 143 Nelson Road, London N8 9RR.

Type of application: seeks dispensation from the requirements to consult in relation to qualifying works. Ms. A. Hamilton-Farey

[1]By an application dated 30 April 2019, the applicant seeks dispensation from the requirements to consult leaseholders in relation to qualifying works to the main front garden area of the property. It is understood from the application that the works involved the renewal of the boundary wall, improved drainage works and the formation of a garden area to the front of the property. .

[2]The applicants say that, since 2008 the three leaseholders had been contributing £100.00 per month each to a service charge to accumulate funds in order to carry out various works of significant financial outlay that had been agreed on. The applicants say that the original leaseholder of Flat C agreed to the works, and that when this flat was assigned, solicitors enquiries were received relating to major expenditure. The applicants responded to confirm that works in the order of £6,700.00 plus VAT would be taking place and that further quotations would be sourced.

[3]The respondent states that those quotations were never provided, and as such the consultation procedures were not properly complied with.

[4]The landlord now seeks dispensation from the requirements to consult following various disputes over service charge payments since 2016. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the Appendix to this decision. The determination:

[5]Directions were issued by the tribunal on 7 May 2019 which required any party who opposed the application to provide a bundle of documents on which they wished to rely in support of their case, including a statement of case. The leaseholders were also required to provide evidence, of what they might have done differently, if the landlord had complied with the statutory process.

[6]The applicants and one respondent produced a bundle. The applicants set out the background to the works; that the front area was discharging water onto the adjacent property and the front step area was too high. Copies of quotations and a spreadsheet of the various payments made were included within the applicants’ bundle. The respondent provided a statement of case but no evidence on which they wished to rely.

[7]Although the tribunal considered that the quotations provided by the applicant were inadequate in that one did not contain the name and address of the contractor and the second did not follow the specification of works that had been produced we must consider whether the respondent has been prejudiced by the actions of the landlord. The respondent did not address the issue of prejudice, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the tribunal considers that none was suffered. The respondent also did not address the issue of what action would have been taken if the landlord had complied with the requirements to consult.

[8]l documents provided to the tribunal are somewhat inadequate, in that one quotation does not bear the name of the contractor, nor who prepared the specification. The quotation supplied by the chosen contractor does not address the specification of works and it cannot be guaranteed that the contractors were pricing against the same specification of works. However, this is not a matter for a S.20ZA application.

[9]In addition, the respondent has not provided any evidence to suggest the works were not undertaken, nor have they produced any evidence to show the works was not required.

[10]In the circumstances, without deciding on liability to pay or reasonableness of the charges, the tribunal considers in the circumstances that dispensation from the requirements to consult should be given to the applicants. Tribunal: Ms. A. Hamilton-Farey Date: 17 June 2019. 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). Appendix of relevant legislation Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 18(1) In the following provisions of this Act "service charge" means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent - (a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or the landlord's costs of management, and (b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs.

(2) The relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a superior landlord, about the matters for which the service charge is payable.

(3) For this purpose - (a) "costs" includes overheads, and (b) costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period. Section 19 (1) Relevant costs shall be considered in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period - (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provisions of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly. (2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant