603 Garratt Lane Earlsfield, London SW18 4SU LON/00BJ/LDC/2024/0203

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00BJ/LDC/2024/0203

Between

Southern Land Securities LimitedApplicant

Mr Wiltshire & Ms Huxford Ms Montgomery-Smith & Mr Naik Mr SandersRespondent

Before

Mr Charles Norman FRICS

Valuer Chairman

Mr Malcolm Bailey MRICS

Together Property Management for the Applicant

No representation 603 Garratt Lane Earlsfield, London SW18 for the Respondent

Date 28 October 2025

Property: 4SU Mr Charles Norman FRICS

DECISION

[1]The application for dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of works to replace guttering and a downpipe and remove moss from the roof is GRANTED unconditionally.

REASONS

[2]Application to the Tribunal dated 21 June 2024 was made for a dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) (set out in the appendix).

[3]The application was for dispensation in respect of these matters: a) erect scaffold at rear of property; a) clear all moss build up from pitched elevation and gutter system; b) remove existing UPVC gutter system and damaged cast iron downpipe; c) supply and fit new UPVC gutter system and downpipe to where previously removed; d) clear waste created by works; and d) dismantle scaffold.

[4]The grounds were that the top floor flat was experiencing water ingress and causing damage to that flat. Owing to the time of year the consultation process would take too long to be completed. The applicant therefore proceeded to carry out the works and make the leaseholders aware of its intention to make application to the tribunal for dispensation.

[5]The applicant referred to two quotations from Darran Hall Roofing dated 13 October 2023 for £1,780 and a second quotation from GHD Contracting Limited dated 24 November 2023 for £2,807.40 including VAT. The applicant proceeded with the lowest quote. The work has been completed. The leaseholders were informed of the applicant’s intention to carry out the work. Directions

[6]Directions were issued on 29 July 2024 that the matter be dealt with by written representations, unless any party made a request for an oral hearing, which none did. The directions required publicity to be given to the application in the block. The applicant confirmed that the application and directions had been sent to all lessees. In addition, lessees were invited to respond to the application. The Property

[7]From the application form and bundle, the property is a converted mid terraced house constructed circa 1890 over basement ground and two upper floors. A further floor was subsequently added. The property is now three self-contained flats. The Leases

[8]The Tribunal was supplied with copies of a sample lease. However, the Tribunal makes no finding as to payability or reasonableness of the costs to be incurred as that is outside the scope of this application. The Respondents’ Cases

[9]An objection was received from Yannish Naik and Ella Montgomery-Smith. Their case was that the works were insufficiently urgent to justify the absence of consultation. The works took several months to be completed. They have not received details of completed works or final costs or the process by which each leaseholder pays. The Law

[10]Section 20ZA is set out in the appendix to this decision. The Tribunal has discretion to grant dispensation when it considers it reasonable to do so. In addition, the Supreme Court Judgment in Daejan Investments Limited v Benson and Others

[2013] UKSC 14

empowers the Tribunal to grant dispensation on terms or subject to conditions. In Daejan at para 46 Lord Neuberger stated “The Requirements are a means to an end, not an end in themselves, and the end to which they are directed is the protection of tenants in relation to service charges, to the extent identified above. …the Requirements leave untouched the fact that it is the landlord who decides what work needs to be done, when they are to be done, who they are to be done by, and what amount is to be paid for them.” Findings

[11]There was clear evidence from the application form that that urgent roof and downpipe work was needed. The Tribunal accepts that this is urgent. The Tribunal considers that the applicant has acted reasonably. The Tribunal finds that the Objectors did not show relevant prejudice as a result of the lack of consultation. They did not show what other course should have been taken or how the outcome would have differed. Therefore, the Tribunal grants dispensation unconditionally.

[12]This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs have been or will be reasonably incurred or are or be payable. The leaseholders continue to enjoy the protection of sections 19 and 27A of the Act. In summary, these provide that service charges are only payable for costs reasonably incurred (or to be incurred) and for work of a reasonable standard. Mr Charles Norman FRICS 28 October 2025 Valuer Chairman ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL• The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its decisions by virtue of the rule 36 (2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below.

• If a party wishes to appeal against 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. Appendix Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (1)Where an application is made to [the appropriate 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. (3)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a)if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b)in any circumstances so prescribed. (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 should 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. (6)Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a)may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b)may make different provision for different purposes. (7)Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.