Shrewsbury House, 42 Cheyne Walk, London SW3 5LN LON/00AW/LDC/2023/0121

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00AW/LDC/2023/0121

Between

SH42CW LtdApplicant

The Leaseholders of the 52 flats at 42 Cheyne WalkRespondent

Before

Judge Nicol

Mr Edward Knight, Principia Estate & Asset Management for the Applicant

Date 4 September 2023

Property: London SW3 5LN

DECISION

The Tribunal grants the Applicant dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the statutory consultation requirements in relation to urgent works to replace communal crittal windows.

REASONS

[1]This application for dispensation from statutory consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 has been determined on the papers. A face to face hearing was not held because the Tribunal directed that the case was suitable for the paper track and the parties did not object. The documents that the Tribunal was referred to are in a bundle consisting of 42 pages in total, the contents of which have been recorded where appropriate below.

[2]The Applicant is the freehold owner of the subject property, being 52 flats in 4 conjoined purpose-built blocks. The Respondents are the lessees of the flats.

[3]The Applicant intends to replace the communal windows in order to increase energy efficiency. They obtained a quote dated 3rd March 2023 from Crittal Installation Services for £33,661.81. Such works are subject to consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 because the costs exceed the threshold of £250 per flat and the Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for dispensation from those requirements under section 20ZA of the Act.

[4]Under section 20ZA(1), the Tribunal may dispense with the statutory consultation requirements if satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. The Supreme Court provided further guidance in Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson

[2013] UKSC 14

;

[2013] 1 WLR 854

:(a) Sections 19 to 20ZA of the Act are directed to ensuring that lessees of flats are not required to pay for unnecessary services or services which are provided to a defective standard or to pay more than they should for services which are necessary and provided to an acceptable standard. [42]

(b) On that basis, the Tribunal should focus on the extent to which lessees were prejudiced by any failure of the landlord to comply with the consultation requirements. [44]

(c) Where the extent, quality and cost of the works were unaffected by the landlord’s failure to comply with the consultation requirements, an unconditional dispensation should normally be granted. [45]

(d) Dispensation should not be refused just because a landlord has breached the consultation requirements. Adherence to the requirements is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and the dispensing jurisdiction is not a punitive or exemplary exercise. The requirements leave untouched the fact that it is the landlord who decides what works need to be done, when they are to be done, who they are to be done by and what amount is to be paid for them. [46]

(e) The financial consequences to a landlord of not granting dispensation and the nature of the landlord are not relevant. [51]

(f) Sections 20 and 20ZA were not included for the purpose of transparency or accountability. [52]

(g) Whether or not to grant dispensation is not a binary choice as dispensation may be granted on terms. [54, 58, 59]

(h) The only prejudice of which a lessee may legitimately complain is that which they would not have suffered if the requirements had been fully complied with but which they would suffer if unconditional dispensation were granted. [65]

(i) Although the legal burden of establishing that dispensation should be granted is on the landlord, there is a factual burden on the lessees to show that prejudice has been incurred. [67]

(j) Given that the landlord has failed to comply with statutory requirements, the Tribunal should be sympathetic to the lessees. If the lessees raise a credible claim of prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it. Any reasonable costs incurred by the lessees in investigating this should be paid by the landlord as a condition of dispensation. [68]

(k) The lessees’ complaint will normally be that they have not had the opportunity to make representations about the works proposed by the landlord, in which case the lessees should identify what they would have said if they had had the opportunity. [69]

[5]The Applicant approached Crittal Installation Services for a quote because they are a specialist in replacing crittal windows with new crittal windows, which is what the Applicant wants and says the lessees want, and they are known to a number of lessees, having used them for work in their own flats. The implication is that they did not approach anyone else because they are unaware of any other contractors who could install new crittal windows.

[6]The Applicant is seeking a dispensation from the consultation requirements because they say the situation is too urgent:(a) The quote is time limited. The Applicant wishes to give the go-ahead before the price goes up.

(b) There is currently scaffolding up for a major works programme. The Applicant wishes to take advantage of that to facilitate the window replacement works.

[7]The usual way that the best price is obtained for major works is to have a tendering process in which a number of contractors compete for the job. The Tribunal is not sure, on the evidence, that Crittal Installation Services are the only possible contractor nor that the proposed works are sufficiently urgent that it would not have been possible to comply with the statutory consultation requirements. However, none of the lessees have objected to the application for dispensation, either to the Applicant or to the Tribunal, let alone established any basis for thinking that they would be prejudiced by the lack of consultation.

[8]The Tribunal’s role at this stage is limited to determining only if the statutory consultation requirements may be dispensed with. As stated in the Tribunal’s directions, “This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.”

[9]Given the lack of any objection or any evidence of prejudice, the Tribunal has determined that it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. Name: Judge Nicol Date: 4th September 2023 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).