Sandhurst Court LimitedApplicantThe leaseholders set out in the appendix to this decisionRespondent
Before
JudgeProfessor R PercivalVenue Remote paper determinationDate 27 May 2025Property: London, SW2 5TX Sandhurst Court Limited, represented by Ringley Law,Type of application: requirements under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 20ZA
DECISION
Decisions of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal, pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), grants dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the works which are the subject of the application. Procedural[1]The landlord submitted an application for retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) and the regulations thereunder, dated 20 January 2025.[2]The Tribunal gave directions on 5 February 2025, which were amended on 5 March 2025. The directions provided for a form to be distributed to those who pay the service charge to allow them to object to or agree with the application, and, if objecting, to provide such further material as they sought to rely on. The application and directions were required to be sent to the leaseholders and any sublessees, and to be displayed as a notice in the common parts of the property. The deadline for return of the forms, to the Applicant and the Tribunal, was 14 April 2025.[3]The Applicant confirmed that the relevant documentation had been sent to the leaseholders and displayed as required.[4]No response from any of the leaseholders has been received by the Tribunal. The property and the works[5]The property is a purpose-built block containing 66 flats, apparently of mid-century construction.[6]The work relates to a lift in the building. It involves replacing an old control panel, extensive re-wiring and the installation of (I assume) improved/compliant elements to the lift system.[7]The Applicant reports that the work was (at the time the application was made) scheduled to start on 20 January 2025 and to conclude by 30 March 2025, at a cost of £52,257.60 including VAT.[8]The Applicant submits that the works are urgent, as the lift was out of service, and required the works to be brought back into service. I assume there were safety and/or operational reasons for the lift being out of service, although they are not specified in the application or the witness statement from the property manager. Determination[9]The relevant statutory provisions are sections 20 and 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1983, and the Service Charges (Consultation etc)(England) Regulations 2003. They may be consulted at the following URLs respectively: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 1985/70 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1987/contents/made[10]The Tribunal is concerned solely with an application under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with the consultation requirements under section 20 and the regulations.[11]The case for urgency made in the application is somewhat thin, in that it amounts to an assertion that the works are urgent to allow lift access to the residents. But I can see from Google Maps Streetview facility that it is a building of six or seven stories. Although the application does not specify how many lifts there are in the building, and if there are more than one, how this affects access, I am prepared to infer that access to at least some of the flats on the upper floors must be seriously compromised by the absence of the lift. Accordingly, I accept that the case for urgency is made out.[12]But in any event, no response has been received from any of the leaseholders objecting to the application by the Tribunal. The directions required any objecting leaseholder or sub-lessee to provide the form to both the Tribunal and the Applicant. The directions did not require the Applicant to notify the Tribunal if it received an objection form, but in any event, it has not, of its own volition, indicated that it had received any.[13]It is therefore apparent that none of the leaseholders have sought to claim any prejudice as a result of the consultation requirements not having been satisfied. Where that is the case, the Tribunal must, quite apart from any question of urgency, allow the application: Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] 1 WLR 854.[14]This application relates solely to the granting of dispensation. If the leaseholders consider the cost of the works to be excessive or the quality of the workmanship poor, or if costs sought to be recovered through the service charge are otherwise not reasonably incurred, then it is open to them to apply to the Tribunal for a determination of those issues under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Rights of appeal[15]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 London regional office.[16]The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.[17]If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, the 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 these reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.[18]The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, 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. Name: Judge Prof Richard Percival Date: 27 May 2025 APPENDIX: THE RESPONDENT LEASEHOLDERS Gaurav Joshi Flat 1 D O Rocha Esq Flat 2 Mr & Mrs R Smyth Flat 3 Perseus Property Company Flat 4 Nilesh Patel Flat 5 Mark Jubber Flat 6 The Lessee (Raymond Addy) Flat 7 Mr S G Brashaw Flat 8 Siobhan Hackett Flat 9 Mr A Lewis Flat 10 Jonathon Noah Smith Flat 11 Julie Keenan Flat 12 T Greenwell Esq Flat 12a Miss J Steele Flat 14 Mr C Roznik Flat 15 Breno Brown Flat 16 R Patel Esq Flat 17 Monique Nascimento Flat 18 Mr K Clarke Flat 19 Miss F Gray Flat 20 Pia Charles Flat 21 Jamie Christopher Booth Flat 22 Jonathan Anthony Davy Beadle Flat 23 Kyren Routledge Flat 24 William Henderson Flat 25 Ms C Burrow & Mr A Greene Flat 26 Mr P Bjorkstrand Flat 27 Dalia Goldberg Flat 28 Mr A Martin Esq Flat 29 Kimberley Holdcroft Flat 30 Miss S Shotton Flat 31 Dorine Faisca Flat 32 Hannah Bougdah Flat 33 Ryan Levi Seah Jia Ping Flat 34 Elena Newton Flat 35 Mr J Monro Flat 36 Ronan Francis Flat 37 Elizabeth Carey Flat 38 Miss D Logan Flat 39 Margaret Murray Flat 40 James Clark Flat 41 D Macarie Esq Flat 42 Michael Sharpe Flat 43 Miss Klein Flat 44 Felix Blakeston Flat 45 Mr Y Hu and Miss E Chappell Flat 46 Miss G Sale Flat 47 Perseus Property Company Flat 48 David Allwood & Peter McPherson Flat 49 Dawn Anderson Flat 50 Elliot Robinson Flat 51 Kyla Chapman Flat 52 Jerome Sampson Flat 53 Perseus Property Company Flat 54 Tara Fisher & Mario Sierra Flat 55 Katherine Aram Flat 56 Megan Wardley Flat 57 Grant Goodband Flat 58 Siobhan M Monaghan & Dominic J O'Riordan Flat 59 Antonia Calgeras Flat 60 Isabel M Petrie & Christian D Yanga Flat 61 Simone De Andrade Nascimento Flat 62 Mr B Woodhouse and Mr A Evans Flat 63 Yakir Firestane Flat 64 Aharon Yetuda Cohen Mohliver Flat 65 Ceri Grier Davies Flat 66