Wythburn Court 34 Seymore Place London W1H 7NS LON/00BK/LDC/2025/0800

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00BK/LDC/2025/0800

Between

Free Estates LtdApplicant

The leaseholders of the 16 apartments in Wythburn CourtRespondent

Before

Judge N O’Brien

Town and City Management Ltd for the Applicant

Date 26 September 2025

Property: London W1H 7NS

DECISION

[1]The Tribunal grants the application for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of the subject works namely works to remedy defective mortar on the front building façade. The Application

[2]By an application notice sent to the tribunal on 16 July 2025 the Applicant’s managing agents applied on behalf of the Applicant pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of repair works to the mortar of the exterior front wall of the subject building. 34 Seymore Place is a 1930’s purpose-built apartment block containing 16 apartments. It faces directly onto Seymore Place. The Respondents are the leasehold owners of apartments 1-17 (there being no Apartment no. 13).

[3]The Applicant seeks dispensation in relation to the cost of repairs to the mortar of the front exterior walls of 34 Seymore Place. According to the application the mortar of the front exterior walls has deteriorated, causing brickwork to fall onto the street below. The Applicant consider that the works are urgent due to the risk of harm to pedestrians in Seymore Place. Consequently it seeks dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements. The applicant has not indicated what the likely cost of the works might be but for the purposes of this application the tribunal assumes that it will exceed £250 per apartment.

[4]By directions dated 8 August 2025 the Tribunal directed that the Applicant should, by 15 August 2025, send to the leaseholders and the residential sub-lessees and any recognised tenants association the application, a brief statement explaining the reasons for the application if not already contained in the application, and the directions, by email or post and affix them to a prominent place in the common parts of the property, and confirm by 18th August 2025 that this had been done.

[5]By email dated 15th August 2025 Ms S Ramsey of the Applicant’s managing agent confirmed that she had served the required documentation by post on 12th August 2025. By email dated 15 August 2025 she further informed the tribunal that she was unable to affix the required documentation in a prominent place in the building until 19th August 2025.

[6]The tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has in substance complied with the directions for service.

[7]The directions provided that if any leaseholder or sublessee objected to the application, he or she should inform the Applicant and the tribunal by 29th August with any reply by the Respondent to be filed and served by 5 September 2025. The tribunal did not receive any objections to the Application.

[8]The directions provided that the tribunal would decide the matter on the basis of written representations unless any party requested a hearing. Neither the Applicant nor any of the Respondents have requested a hearing.

[9]The Applicant has filed a bundle for use in the determination. In addition to the application and a brief statement of case, it includes the lease for apartment no. 8, a number of photographs of the building and an inspection report prepared by J Livemore MRICS which is undated. Mr Livemore inspected the building. He notes that the work to the loose sections of mortar is urgent. He also recommends that the freeholder undertake a more comprehensive programme of external repairs to the roof, chimney stack and exterior brickwork in the next 12 months.

[10]This determination relates to the urgent works described in the application, namely works to remediate the loose mortar on the front exterior walls of the building. It does not relate to the more comprehensive major works project outlined in the report of Mr Livemore. It does not concern the reasonableness of the cost of the urgent works. Legal Framework

[11]The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 set out the consultation process which a landlord must follow in respect of works which will result in any leaseholder contributing more than £250 towards the cost. In summary they require the Landlord to follow a three-stage process before commencing the works. Firstly the Landlord must send each leaseholder a notice (usually referred to as a stage 1 notice) of intention to carry out the works and give the leaseholders 30 days to respond. Then the Landlord must supply the leaseholders with a statement with least two estimates for the carrying out of the proposed works, and permit a further 30-day period for observations. Then, if the landlord does not contract with a contractor nominated by the leaseholders or does not contract with the contractor who has supplied the lowest estimate, it must serve a further notice explaining why.

[12]Section 20ZA of the LTA 1985 provides: “Where an application is made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination to dispense with any or all 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”.

[13]In Dejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others

[2013] UKSC 14

the Supreme Court held that in any application for dispensation under s20ZA of LTA 1985 the Tribunal should focus on the extent, if any , to which the leaseholders are or would be prejudiced by either paying for inappropriate works or paying more than would be reasonable as a result of the failure by the landlord to comply with the Regulations. The gravity of the landlord’s failing or the reasonableness of its actions are only relevant insofar as they are shown to have caused such prejudice. The evidential burden of identifying relevant prejudice lies on the tenants but once they have raised a credible case of prejudice, the burden is then on the landlord/applicant to rebut it. The Decision

[14]The Tribunal determines that it will grant the dispensation sought. The tribunal is satisfied that the remediation works to the mortar to the front external walls is urgent due to the risk of injury to persons in Seymore Place. Further the Respondents have not objected to the application, and there is no evidence of any prejudice to any of them if the application is granted. Consequently the tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant the dispensation sought.

[15]This determination does not affect the rights of the leaseholders to apply for a determination under s27A of the LTA 1985 in respect of the cost of the works, or the cost of these proceedings, save as to the question of compliance with the consultation requirements.

[16]The Applicant is reminded that, as stated in paragraph 9 of the directions, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to serve a copy of this decision on all the affected lessees. Name: Judge N O’Brien Date: 26 September 2025 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 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).