52-56 Streatham High Road, London, SW16 1BZ LON/00AY/LDC/2025/0718

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00AY/LDC/2025/0718

Between

Austin Comer LtdApplicant

Mr Stephen Turner Miss L Desouza Mr Abass Alidina Souk Restaurants Limited C/O QA Nominees Ltd Ms Nadia MahdiRespondent

Before

Mr R Waterhouse BSc (Hons) LLM

K & M Property Management Ltd for the Applicant

None For dispensation from the for the Respondent

Date 22 July 2025

Property: London, SW16 1BZ

Type of application: consultation requirements under Section 20ZA Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

DECISION

This has been a remote paper determination, which has been consented to by the parties. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and no one requested same. The documents the Tribunal were referred to were in a bundle of some 64 pages. Decision(1) The Tribunal determines that unconditional dispensation should be granted from the consultation requirements from Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) in respect of the property 52-56 Streatham High Road, London SW16 1BZ.

(2) We make no determination as to the reasonableness of the costs of same, these being matters which can be considered, if necessary, under the provisions of s27A and s19 of the Act. The Application

[1]This Application dated 24 April 2025, is made by K&M Property Management Ltd on behalf of the Austin Comer Ltd.

[2]The Application seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

[3]The Application is concerned solely with the question of what consultation if any should be given of the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the 1985 for works addressing deteriorating masonry external facade, costing in excess of £250 per flat. It is not concerned with the reasonableness or payability of any service charges which may arise. The Determination

[4]A written Application was made by K & M Property Management Ltd. The Tribunal considered the written bundle of 64 pages, in support of the Application. Background The property

[5]The Property is described in the application as “a block of 3 flats above a commercial unit. The building is older than 50 years. The block has 3 floors including a basement.”

[6]The Application is made for “qualifying works”. The Form notes under “Details of Dispensation”; specifically, “we were notified by one of the leaseholders that the facia and soffit boards were showing signs of disrepair and were becoming dangerous. As a result, we instructed a contractor on an emergency basis to make good and prevent further damage and scaffolding was erected. Since the scaffolding was erected, further safety works have been identified.”

[7]The Directions dated 30 May 2025, provided for the tribunal to be responsible for serving a copy of the application and directions. This was completed on 3 June 2025

[8]Those who objected should make their objections known to the applicant and the tribunal by completing a Reply Form by 30 June 2025. No representations were received.

[9]The Landlord may by the 7 July 2025 provide a brief reply to any leaseholder who opposes the Application.

[10]The only issue for the Tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements of Section 20 of the 1985 Act. This Application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. Documents

[11]The Tribunal has had recourse to the Bundle of 64 pages which includes the Application form, Directions, quotations and a copy of a specimen lease. The Tribunal’s decision

[12]The Tribunal grants dispensation under Section 20 ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation) (England) 2003 for the works set out in the Application.

[13]We are, aware of the judgment in Daejan Investments Limited v Benson and others

[2013] UKSC 14

. The Application for dispensation is not challenged.

[14]The Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger at para 50) accepted that there must be real prejudice to the tenants. Indeed, the Respondents do not oppose the Application. It is accepted that we have the power to grant dispensation on such terms as we think fit. However, the Landlord is entitled to decide the identity of the contractors who carry out the work, when they are done, by whom and the amount. The safety net for the Respondents is to be found in Sections 19 and 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

[15]Accordingly, we find that unconditional dispensation should be granted.

[16]Our decision is in respect of the dispensation from the provisions of s20 of the Act only. It is open to the opposing leaseholder or others to apply under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 27A, should there be concerns over the payability and reasonableness of the service charge, these may include concerns over necessity, quality of work and its cost. Richard Waterhouse Name: Richard Waterhouse FRICS 22 July 2025 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 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 to 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 (ie 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