Lavender House, 1B Radcliffe Cross Street, London E1 2HS LON/00BG/LDC/2024/0220

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00BG/LDC/2024/0220

Between

Lavender House RTM Co LtdApplicant

The residential leaseholders of flats 1-23 Lavender House, 1B Radcliffe Cross Street, London E1 2NSRespondent

Before

Judge Sarah McKeown

Jonathan Cole, Flaxfields Limited for the Applicant

N/A To dispense with the statutory consultation requirements under for the Respondent

Date 20 May 2025

Property: Street, London E1 2HS

Type of application: section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

DECISION

This has been a remote hearing on the papers. A face-to-face hearing was not held because no-one requested a hearing and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents to which the Tribunal was referred are in two electronic bundle of 79 pages, the contents of which the Tribunal has noted. The decision made is as set out below. DECISION The Tribunal grants the application for retrospective dispensation from statutory consultation in respect of works to rectify defects with the single lift installation in the sum of £5,091.34 plus VAT. This decision does not affect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction upon any future application to make a determination under section 27A of the Act in respect of the reasonableness and/or cost of the qualifying long-term agreement. The Applicant must serve a copy of this decision on all Respondents, and the Interested Person and display a copy of this decision in a prominent place in the common parts of the Property within 14 days of receipt of this decision. The Application – p.2 References are to page numbers in the bundle provided for the hearing.

[1]Lavender House, 1B Radcliffe Cross Street, London E1 2HS (“the Property”) is a block of purpose-built flats. It has six floors, some with balconies, with basement, bike and bin store. It has fob access and the entrance hall and stairwell are communal. It comprises 23 residential flats and has a commercial unit (hence the Interested Person) on the ground floor.

[2]The Applicant is the Right to Manage company.

[3]The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) for retrospective dispensation from consultation in respect of works to repair a lift.

[4]The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003 provide that consultation requirements are triggered if the landlord plans to carry out qualifying works or enter into a qualifying long-term agreement which would result in the contribution of any tenant being more than £250. The cost which is the subject of the application exceeds this threshold.

[5]By directions dated 12 September 2024 (‘the directions”) the Tribunal directed that the Applicant had, by 28 September 2024, send to each of the leaseholders (and any residential sublessees), to any recognised residents’ association and to the Interested Person, by email, hand delivery or first-class post, among other things, copies of the application form (unless already sent), brief statement to explain the reasons for the application (unless already detailed in the application form), copies of any reports, estimate and a copy of the directions.

[6]Leaseholders who opposed to the application were to respond by 8 October 2024. There was also provision for a response from the Applicant.

[7]By further directions dated 6 January 2025 (p.12) it was noted that the Tribunal had received an email from Mr. Coles of Flaxfields Limited stating that he had not received the earlier directions and so an extension of time was given for compliance.

[8]The Tribunal has not received a completed form from any leaseholder or sublessee.

[9]The directions provided that the Tribunal would decide the matter on the basis of written submissions unless any party requested a hearing. No such request has been made. The Applicant’s case

[10]It is said that the lift was broken and not working. The diagnosis was that the main drive unit needed to be replaced. The estimates were £5,091.34 plus VAT (p.23). The residents were unable to get to their properties via the lift. The applicant states that the Applicant had provided notice to owners that the works needed to be carried out, and that they were urgent. It was said that they were applying with dispensation due to the fact that the “normal” s.20 route could take up to three months. It is said that Kone would be appointed to complete the repairs to the main drive unit and ensure that the lift was working. There were 24 units that were unable to use the lift.

[11]A copy of the lease for Apartment 22 has been provided (it is between Magari Builders Limited and Mr. Greenshields and it dated 10 December 2010) – p.30.

[12]It specifies that the Lessee’s Proportion is 5.01% in relation to the costs attributable to the whole of the building. The Service Charge is defined in the Seventh Schedule.

[13]The Interested Person is a commercial leaseholder and was initially named as a Respondent. It was noted in the directions dated 12 September 2024 that there was no obligation under the 1985 Act to consult them about the proposed works: that obligation only benefited residential leaseholders and so Sainsbury’s were made an Interested Person to they were aware of the application and the matters it contained. The Respondent’s case

[14]No Respondent objected to the application. The Law

[15]Section 20ZA of the Act, subsection (1) provides: “Where an application is made to a 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”.

[16]The Supreme Court in the case of Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and Others

[2013] UKSC 14

set out certain principles relevant to section 20ZA. Lord Neuberger, having clarified that the purpose of section 19 to 20ZA of the Act was to ensure that tenants are protected from paying for inappropriate works and paying more than would be appropriate, went on to state “it seems to me that the issue on which the [tribunal] should focus when entertaining an application by a landlord under section 20ZA(1) must be the extent, if any, to which the tenants were prejudiced in either respect by the failure of the landlord to comply with the requirements”. Determination and Reasons

[17]The whole purpose of section 20ZA is to permit a landlord to dispense with the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Act if the tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable for them to be dispensed with. Such an application may be made retrospectively, as it has been made here.

[18]The Tribunal has taken account of the decision in Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and Others in reaching its decision.

[19]A lift service is necessary to serve, among others, any elderly or vulnerable individuals within the building. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Respondents were prejudiced by the failure of the Applicant to comply with the consultation requirements.

[20]The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that it is reasonable to grant unconditional retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements of s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in regard to the works set out herein.

[21]The Tribunal make no determination as to whether the cost of the works are reasonable or payable. If any leaseholder wishes to challenge the reasonableness of the costs, then a separate application under s.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 should be made.

[22]It is the responsibility of the Applicant to serve a copy of this decision on all Respondents, and the Interested Person and to display a copy of this decision in a prominent place in the common parts of the Building. Name: Judge S. McKeown Date: 20 May 2025 Rights of appeal 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).