The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of LambethApplicantThe 4 leaseholders listed in the schedule accompanying the application.Respondent
Before
Duncan Jagger MRICSDate 20 April 2021Property: London, SE2 9AQ The Mayor and Burgesses of theType of application: Application for the dispensation of consultation requirements pursuant to S. 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
[1]The property is a purpose built block of eight flats built during the 1960s located in an established residential area amongst properties of various type and age. The applicant confirms that four of the flats (numbers 2,3,7 and 8 are held on long leases.) and are the respondents to this application.[2]The tribunal did not inspect the property as it considered the documentation and information before it in the trial bundle enabled the tribunal to proceed with this determination and also because of the restrictions and regulations arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic.[3]This has been a paper hearing which has been consented to by the parties. The documents that were referred to are in a bundle prepared by the applicant, plus the tribunals Directions the contents of which we have recorded. Therefore, the tribunal had before it an electronic/digital trial bundle of documents containing 82 pages prepared by the applicant, in accordance with previous directions.[4]The Applicant seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) from all the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by section 20 of the 1985 Act, (see the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (SI2003/1987), Schedule 4.) The request for dispensation concerns urgent works for the replacement of a. defective .water pipe which was leaking from the ‘valve point’ to the entry of the block. The application is said to be urgent, as the works are necessary to provide a satisfactory cold water supply to the residents of the eight properties.[5]The application is said to be urgent, as the works are necessary to remedy a leak in the supply pipework and provide a cold water supply at correct pressure to the residents of the eight properties, in accordance with the terms of the lease.[6]Section 20ZA relates to consultation requirements and provides as follows: “(1)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. (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. …. (4)In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5)Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord—(a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants’ association representing them,(b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements,(c) to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord suld try to obtain other estimates,(d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and(e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements.[7]The Directions on 9th March 2021 required any tenants who opposed the application to make their objections known on the reply form produced with the Directions. The Tribunal is aware that there has been one objection from Corinna Chandler of flat 7. This objection has been carefully considered by the tribunal The objection generally states there has been a lack of transparency concerning detailed information in connection with the works and poor communication with leaseholders in connection with the display of application There has not however been an objection in connection with the works themselves.[8]We are informed the statutory consultation did not take place with leaseholders due to a ‘technical error’ and in fact the works were completed by MPS Housing Ltd on the 24th July 2021 and an invoice dated 21st August 2020 has been submitted in the sum of £5,572.80 inclusive of VAT.In a Witness Statement provided by Daniel Weston (page 74 of the bundle) it is stated the progressing of the works prior to any Section 20 Notices was ‘an internal processing error on behalf of the water processing team’ In essence the tribunal is satisfied this was an unfortunate communication breakdown within the Council and it was always the intention to comply with the consultation process. The Decision[10]By Directions of the tribunal dated 9 March 2021 it was decided that the application be determined without a hearing or by way of a video hearing. One objection to the application received but there was no such objection to the case being determined on written representations. (i) The tribunal had before it a bundle of documents prepared by the applicant that contained the application, grounds for making the application, specimen lease the Tribunal Directions and a letter from Corinna Chandler objecting to a general lack transparency forming the application together with the lack of display of the application as set out in the Directions. The applicant wrote to the tribunal confirming that due to the pandemic and remote working it was not possible to place a copy of the application within the common parts of the block and this was agreed by Judge Carr on the 19th March 2021.[12]The only issue for the Tribunal to decide is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application does not concern the issue of whether or not service charges will be reasonable or payable.[13]Having read the evidence and submissions from the Applicant and having considered all of the documents and grounds for making the application provided by the applicant, the Tribunal determines the dispensation issues as follows.[14]Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 require a landlord planning to undertake major works, where a leaseholder will be required to contribute over £250 towards those works, to consult the leaseholders in a specified form.[15]Should a landlord not comply with the correct consultation procedure, it is possible to obtain dispensation from compliance with these requirements by such an application as is this one before the Tribunal. Essentially the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.[16]In the case of Daejan Investments Limited v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, by a majority decision (3-2), the Supreme Court considered the dispensation provisions and set out guidelines as to how they should be applied.[17]The Supreme Court came to the following conclusions:a. The correct legal test on an application to the Tribunal for dispensation is: ! ! “Would the flat owners suffer any relevant prejudice, and if so, what relevant prejudice, as a result of the landlord’s failure to comply with the requirements?”b. The purpose of the consultation procedure is to ensure leaseholders are protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than would be appropriate.c. In considering applications for dispensation the Tribunal should focus on whether the leaseholders were prejudiced in either respect by the landlord’s failure to comply.d. The Tribunal has the power to grant dispensation on appropriate terms and can impose conditions.e. The factual burden of identifying some relevant prejudice is on the leaseholders. Once they have shown a credible case for prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it.f. The onus is on the leaseholders to establish: i. what steps they would have taken had the breach not happened and ii. in what way their rights under (b) above have been prejudiced as a consequence.[16]Accordingly, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was any prejudice that may have arisen out of the conduct of the applicant and whether it was reasonable for the Tribunal to grant dispensation following the guidance set out above.[17]The tribunal is of the view that, taking into account the one objection, it could not find prejudice to any of the leaseholders of the property by the granting of dispensation relating to the essential replacement of the leaking pipework providing a cold water supply to the eight flats as set out in the documentation in the trial bundle submitted in support of the application.[18]The Tribunal was mindful of the fact that the qualifying works form part of a QLTA under part 3 of the regulations and that therefore dispensation is wholly appropriate.[19]The applicant and the contractors believe that the works were vital and affected the five residents identified in this building. The applicant also says that in effect the tenants of the properties have not suffered any prejudice by the failure to consult prior to the undertaking of these works. On the evidence before it the Tribunal agrees with this conclusion and believes that it is reasonable to allow dispensation in relation to the subject matter of the application. It must be the case that the applicant must ensure that there is an adequate water supply provided to the leaseholders in accordance with the terms of the lease .The replacement of the defective main water pipe should therefore be carried out as a matter of urgency, hence the decision of the Tribunal.[20]Rights of appeal made available to parties to this dispute are set out in an Annex to this decision.[21]The applicant shall be responsible for formally serving a copy of the tribunal’s decision on all leaseholders named on the schedule attached to the application. Furthermore, the applicant shall place a copy of the tribunal’s decision on dispensation together with an explanation of the leaseholders’ appeal rights on its website (if any) within 7 days of receipt and shall maintain it there for at least 3 months, with a sufficiently prominent link to both on its home page. Even current circumstances copies should also be placed in a prominent place in the common parts of the buildings. In this way, leaseholders who have not returned the reply form may view the tribunal’s eventual decision on dispensation and their appeal right- s.The Tribunal requests the applicant to confirm to the Tribunal this has been carried out. Name: Duncan Jagger MRICS Date: 20th April 2021 ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL[1]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.[2]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.[3]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.[4]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.