Vector Point, 1-5 Hainault Bridge Parade, IG1 4GF LON/00BC/LDC/2025/0987
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No LON/00BC/LDC/2025/0987
Between
Vector Point Residents Association LtdApplicantThe 24 long leaseholders as per the schedule attached to the applicationRespondent
Before
Judge TagliaviniProperty Management Legal Services Limited (Georgia Ball reference GMB/VEC001-0011) for the ApplicantN/A Application under s.20ZA Landlord and for the RespondentVenue 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LRDate 13 April 2026Property: Parade, IG1 4GFType of application: Tenant Act 1985 – dispensation from consultation
DECISION
The tribunal’s decision (1) The tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought by the applicant in respect of the utilisation of already erected scaffolding to enable the inspection of the building and undertake any necessary remedial works to remedy identified defects. _____________________________________________________ Background[1]The applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of works to remedy water ingress to the communal areas of the sixth floor of the property at Vector Point, 1-5 Hainault Bridge Parade, IG1 4GF (‘the property’).[2]The subject property is a residential property comprising 24 flats over 6 storeys. Vector Point is located next to a railway line. As such, consent from Network Rail is required to erect scaffolding at Vector Point. Everlast has already obtained the requisite consent. As such if the roof repairs are undertaken by Everlast it will obviate the need for further consent to be obtained.[3]The applicant informed the tribunal it was intended to utilise already erected scaffolding to enable the inspection of the building and undertake any necessary remedial works to remedy identified defects. The scaffolding was scheduled to be in place from March 2026 to facilitate replacement of defective ACM cladding affixed to the building. The ACM cladding works are part funded by the Building Safety Fund (BSF).[4]A Notice of Intention date 7 October 2025 was sent to the parties informing them of the applicant’s intention to(1) reinstate missing fascia and(2) erect scaffolding and survey the roof and(3) carry out necessary repairs identified. This dispensation application was made in respect of the works to remedy the water ingress to the sixth floor only it does not seek dispensation for the BSF funded cladding replacement work. The hearing[5]Neither party requested a hearing and the application was determined on the papers provided, which a digital bundle of 80 pages. The applicant relied upon a witness statement of Abbey Louise Brealey, director of Metta Property Management Limited and dated 11/12/2025.[6]Responses were received from only 2 of the long leaseholder respondents who stated in similar terms: I do not oppose the application. Undertaking these works while scaffolding is already erected avoids the need for additional scaffolding and will reduce overall costs for leaseholders. The statutory consultation process exists to provide leaseholders with important safeguards, in relation to transparency regarding the works, the procurement process, and the associated costs. Dispensing with consultation removes these safeguards. In these circumstances, I ask the Tribunal to consider whether leaseholders could suffer financial burden if dispensation is granted without sufficient information being provided regarding the nature of the works and the basis on which the associated costs have been determined.[7]The applicant provided a Statement in Reply which told the tribunal that until an inspection of the roof had been carried out it was not known what works were required or their cost.
REASONS
[8]The tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant the applicant the dispensation form consultation sought in respect of the utilisation of already instructed scaffolding, the carrying out of an inspection and the undertaking of any identified remedial works required.[9]The tribunal is satisfied they have failed to demonstrate that any substantive prejudice has or will be caused by the grant of dispensation; Daejan Investment Ltd v Benson & others [2013] UKSC 14 & [2013] UKSC 54. The tribunal’s Directions expressly stated that: This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable, or the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022[10]It is for the respondents, not the tribunal, to demonstrate the leaseholders will be caused (other) substantial prejudice by the dispensation from consultation. The reasonableness and payability of the cost of these works can be challenged by the respond leaseholders in due course, should they choose to make the appropriate application.[11]Therefore, the tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought by the applicant. Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 13 April 2026 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 should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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).