Knowles Court, Eccles Road, Salford M6 8ES MAN/00BN/LDC/2022/0039

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No MAN/00BN/LDC/2022/0039
Between
Opengate Residents Association LimitedApplicantLong Residential Leaseholders at the PropertyRespondent
Before
Judge L BennettThornley Groves for the ApplicantDate 19 December 2022Property: Knowles Court, Eccles Road, Salford M6 8ESType of application: Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA

DECISION

[1]Opengate Residents Association Limited applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) for dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) in respect of Fire Safety Works (the Works) carried out at Knowles Court (the Property).[2]The Respondents are the Long Residential Leaseholders at the Property and listed at the Annex to this decision. Grounds and Submissions[3]The application was received by the Tribunal on 5 May 2022.[4]The Applicant is the resident management company with responsibility for the building.[5]The Tribunal did not carry out an inspection but understands that the Property comprises 2 x 3 storey buildings, constructed of traditional brick cavity walls with block and beam floors, with a flat roof, housing 40 individual flats.[6]On 22 July 2022, a Tribunal Judge made directions requiring the service of documents by the Applicant upon each of the Respondents. The directions provided that in the absence of a request for a hearing the application would be determined upon the parties’ written submissions. However, it later came to light that not all the leaseholder Respondents were included in the Applicant’s original application. A Tribunal Legal Officer therefore made further directions on 5 October 2022. The Applicant amended its application to include all 40 of the leaseholders at Knowles Court and was directed to serve a copy of its case bundle and the Tribunal directions upon each Respondent Leaseholder. The Applicant’s Representative confirmed on 27 October 2022 that the bundle had been served on all of the Respondents.[7]The Applicant has provided a statement explaining why the application was made to the Tribunal together with supporting documents.[8]On 27 October 2021, the Applicant made arrangements to meet with Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. On 16 November 2021, a Fire Risk Assessment was undertaken by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. A number of fire safety issues were found and an action plan was drawn up in order to remedy those issues. On 31 January 2022, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service wrote to the Applicant confirming the breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and listing the areas of non-compliance. It stated that the areas of non-compliance were considered serious but able to be rectified. Failure to comply with the Regulations is an offence, which may result in the Combined Authority issuing an Enforcement Notice to ensure compliance.[9]Quotes for the works were obtained as a matter of urgency, which is evidenced in the Applicant’s bundle, so that the necessary actions could be instructed as soon as possible, for the safety of the residents.[10]The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from a Respondent Leaseholder. Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.[11]The Tribunal convened without the parties to make its determination on 19 December 2022. Law[12]Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.[13]Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.[14]Section 20 of the Act states:- “Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements Where this Section applies to any qualifying works…… the relevant contributions of tenants are limited……. Unless the consultation requirements have either:-a. complied with in relation to the works orb. dispensed with in relation to the works by …… a tribunal. This Section applies to qualifying works, if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount”.[15]“The appropriate amount” is defined by regulation 6 of The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) as “……. an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00.”[16]Section 20ZA(1) of the Act states:- "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 ……..….. the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements." Tribunal’s Conclusions with Reasons[17]I have determined this matter following a consideration of the Applicant’s case but without holding a hearing. Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 permits a case to be dealt with in this manner provided that the parties give their consent (or do not object when a paper determination is proposed). In this case, the Applicant has given its consent and the Tribunal has not heard from a Respondent in response to the application. Moreover, having reviewed the case papers, I am satisfied that this matter is indeed suitable to be determined without a hearing. Determining this matter does not require me to decide disputed questions of fact.[18]It is not necessary to consider at this stage the extent of any service charges that may result from the works payable under the terms of the Respondents’ leases. If and when such is demanded, and if disputed, it may properly be the subject of a future application to the Tribunal.[19]Having considered the submission made by the Applicant I accept the urgent nature of the works. A consultation exercise would have added considerable delay. For the safety of all Residents, a decision was taken to act swiftly and carry out the necessary urgent works. The Applicant’s agent did keep leaseholders informed as to the progress of the works.[20]In Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 it was determined that a Tribunal, when considering whether to grant dispensation, should consider whether the tenants would be prejudiced by any failure to comply with the Consultation Requirements. Balancing the need for urgent action against dispensing with statutory requirements devised to protect service charge paying Leaseholders, I conclude that the urgency outweighs any identified prejudice. Dispensation from consultation requirements does not imply that any resulting service charge is reasonable. Order[21]The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the work specified in the application. Laurence J Bennett Tribunal Judge 19 December 2022 Annex - List of Respondent Leaseholders and Unit Number Leaseholder Unit Archibald Hart 1 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Owens 2 Knowles Court Jennifer Leanne Grayson-Allcock 3 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 4 Knowles Court Andrew Watkins 5 Knowles Court Mr Sanjay Doshi 6 Knowles Court Miss Elspeth Ryner 7 Knowles Court Miss I M Halliwell 8 Knowles Court Mr Anthony Nicholls 9 Knowles Court Amy Yu Di Chan 10 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Piggott 11 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Hitchcock 12 Knowles Court Mrs D Murphy 13 Knowles Court Mrs Kathleen Kelly 14 Knowles Court Miss J Dudley 15 Knowles Court Sean & Vivien Rourke 16 Knowles Court Mrs Uttley 17 Knowles Court Mr Sodawala 18 Knowles Court Mr Campbell 19 Knowles Court Janice & Kenneth Fletcher 20 Knowles Court Mr Alan Gay 21 Knowles Court Mr Heywood 22 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs E Smith 23 Knowles Court Mr Crankshaw 24 Knowles Court Berron Limited 25 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Wolstenholme 26 Knowles Court Deen Enterprise 27 Knowles Court Miss Kerry O’Sullivan 28 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Murphy 29 Knowles Court Miss Susan Wroe 30 Knowles Court Miss Gail Brough 31 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 32 Knowles Court M & Mrs Parkins 33 Knowles Court Miss Lynda Smith 34 Knowles Court Mr Edward Walker 35 Knowles Court Mr Kaduji 36 Knowles Court Paul & David Burgess 37 Knowles Court Miss Denise Coulston 38 Knowles Court Joseph Daniel Brierley 39 Knowles Court Dr S Agrawal 40 Knowles Court Case Reference : MAN/00BN/LDC/2022/0039 Property : Knowles Court, Eccles Road, Salford M6 8ES Applicant : Opengate Residents Association Limited Representative : Thornley Groves Respondents : Long Residential Leaseholders at the Property Type of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA Tribunal Member : Judge L Bennett Date of determination : 19 December 2022 Date of Decision : 19 December 2022 _______________________________________________ DECISION ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022 Application[1]Opengate Residents Association Limited applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) for dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) in respect of Fire Safety Works (the Works) carried out at Knowles Court (the Property).[2]The Respondents are the Long Residential Leaseholders at the Property and listed at the Annex to this decision. Grounds and Submissions[3]The application was received by the Tribunal on 5 May 2022.[4]The Applicant is the resident management company with responsibility for the building.[5]The Tribunal did not carry out an inspection but understands that the Property comprises 2 x 3 storey buildings, constructed of traditional brick cavity walls with block and beam floors, with a flat roof, housing 40 individual flats.[6]On 22 July 2022, a Tribunal Judge made directions requiring the service of documents by the Applicant upon each of the Respondents. The directions provided that in the absence of a request for a hearing the application would be determined upon the parties’ written submissions. However, it later came to light that not all the leaseholder Respondents were included in the Applicant’s original application. A Tribunal Legal Officer therefore made further directions on 5 October 2022. The Applicant amended its application to include all 40 of the leaseholders at Knowles Court and was directed to serve a copy of its case bundle and the Tribunal directions upon each Respondent Leaseholder. The Applicant’s Representative confirmed on 27 October 2022 that the bundle had been served on all of the Respondents.[7]The Applicant has provided a statement explaining why the application was made to the Tribunal together with supporting documents.[8]On 27 October 2021, the Applicant made arrangements to meet with Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. On 16 November 2021, a Fire Risk Assessment was undertaken by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. A number of fire safety issues were found and an action plan was drawn up in order to remedy those issues. On 31 January 2022, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service wrote to the Applicant confirming the breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and listing the areas of non-compliance. It stated that the areas of non-compliance were considered serious but able to be rectified. Failure to comply with the Regulations is an offence, which may result in the Combined Authority issuing an Enforcement Notice to ensure compliance.[9]Quotes for the works were obtained as a matter of urgency, which is evidenced in the Applicant’s bundle, so that the necessary actions could be instructed as soon as possible, for the safety of the residents.[10]The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from a Respondent Leaseholder. Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.[11]The Tribunal convened without the parties to make its determination on 19 December 2022. Law[12]Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.[13]Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.[14]Section 20 of the Act states:- “Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements Where this Section applies to any qualifying works…… the relevant contributions of tenants are limited……. Unless the consultation requirements have either:-a. complied with in relation to the works orb. dispensed with in relation to the works by …… a tribunal. This Section applies to qualifying works, if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount”.[15]“The appropriate amount” is defined by regulation 6 of The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) as “……. an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00.”[16]Section 20ZA(1) of the Act states:- "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 ……..….. the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements." Tribunal’s Conclusions with Reasons[17]I have determined this matter following a consideration of the Applicant’s case but without holding a hearing. Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 permits a case to be dealt with in this manner provided that the parties give their consent (or do not object when a paper determination is proposed). In this case, the Applicant has given its consent and the Tribunal has not heard from a Respondent in response to the application. Moreover, having reviewed the case papers, I am satisfied that this matter is indeed suitable to be determined without a hearing. Determining this matter does not require me to decide disputed questions of fact.[18]It is not necessary to consider at this stage the extent of any service charges that may result from the works payable under the terms of the Respondents’ leases. If and when such is demanded, and if disputed, it may properly be the subject of a future application to the Tribunal.[19]Having considered the submission made by the Applicant I accept the urgent nature of the works. A consultation exercise would have added considerable delay. For the safety of all Residents, a decision was taken to act swiftly and carry out the necessary urgent works. The Applicant’s agent did keep leaseholders informed as to the progress of the works.[20]In Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 it was determined that a Tribunal, when considering whether to grant dispensation, should consider whether the tenants would be prejudiced by any failure to comply with the Consultation Requirements. Balancing the need for urgent action against dispensing with statutory requirements devised to protect service charge paying Leaseholders, I conclude that the urgency outweighs any identified prejudice. Dispensation from consultation requirements does not imply that any resulting service charge is reasonable. Order[21]The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the work specified in the application. Laurence J Bennett Tribunal Judge 19 December 2022 Annex - List of Respondent Leaseholders and Unit Number Leaseholder Unit Archibald Hart 1 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Owens 2 Knowles Court Jennifer Leanne Grayson-Allcock 3 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 4 Knowles Court Andrew Watkins 5 Knowles Court Mr Sanjay Doshi 6 Knowles Court Miss Elspeth Ryner 7 Knowles Court Miss I M Halliwell 8 Knowles Court Mr Anthony Nicholls 9 Knowles Court Amy Yu Di Chan 10 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Piggott 11 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Hitchcock 12 Knowles Court Mrs D Murphy 13 Knowles Court Mrs Kathleen Kelly 14 Knowles Court Miss J Dudley 15 Knowles Court Sean & Vivien Rourke 16 Knowles Court Mrs Uttley 17 Knowles Court Mr Sodawala 18 Knowles Court Mr Campbell 19 Knowles Court Janice & Kenneth Fletcher 20 Knowles Court Mr Alan Gay 21 Knowles Court Mr Heywood 22 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs E Smith 23 Knowles Court Mr Crankshaw 24 Knowles Court Berron Limited 25 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Wolstenholme 26 Knowles Court Deen Enterprise 27 Knowles Court Miss Kerry O’Sullivan 28 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Murphy 29 Knowles Court Miss Susan Wroe 30 Knowles Court Miss Gail Brough 31 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 32 Knowles Court M & Mrs Parkins 33 Knowles Court Miss Lynda Smith 34 Knowles Court Mr Edward Walker 35 Knowles Court Mr Kaduji 36 Knowles Court Paul & David Burgess 37 Knowles Court Miss Denise Coulston 38 Knowles Court Joseph Daniel Brierley 39 Knowles Court Dr S Agrawal 40 Knowles Court Case Reference : MAN/00BN/LDC/2022/0039 Property : Knowles Court, Eccles Road, Salford M6 8ES Applicant : Opengate Residents Association Limited Representative : Thornley Groves Respondents : Long Residential Leaseholders at the Property Type of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA Tribunal Member : Judge L Bennett Date of determination : 19 December 2022 Date of Decision : 19 December 2022 _______________________________________________ DECISION ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022 Application[1]Opengate Residents Association Limited applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) for dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) in respect of Fire Safety Works (the Works) carried out at Knowles Court (the Property).[2]The Respondents are the Long Residential Leaseholders at the Property and listed at the Annex to this decision. Grounds and Submissions[3]The application was received by the Tribunal on 5 May 2022.[4]The Applicant is the resident management company with responsibility for the building.[5]The Tribunal did not carry out an inspection but understands that the Property comprises 2 x 3 storey buildings, constructed of traditional brick cavity walls with block and beam floors, with a flat roof, housing 40 individual flats.[6]On 22 July 2022, a Tribunal Judge made directions requiring the service of documents by the Applicant upon each of the Respondents. The directions provided that in the absence of a request for a hearing the application would be determined upon the parties’ written submissions. However, it later came to light that not all the leaseholder Respondents were included in the Applicant’s original application. A Tribunal Legal Officer therefore made further directions on 5 October 2022. The Applicant amended its application to include all 40 of the leaseholders at Knowles Court and was directed to serve a copy of its case bundle and the Tribunal directions upon each Respondent Leaseholder. The Applicant’s Representative confirmed on 27 October 2022 that the bundle had been served on all of the Respondents.[7]The Applicant has provided a statement explaining why the application was made to the Tribunal together with supporting documents.[8]On 27 October 2021, the Applicant made arrangements to meet with Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. On 16 November 2021, a Fire Risk Assessment was undertaken by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. A number of fire safety issues were found and an action plan was drawn up in order to remedy those issues. On 31 January 2022, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service wrote to the Applicant confirming the breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and listing the areas of non-compliance. It stated that the areas of non-compliance were considered serious but able to be rectified. Failure to comply with the Regulations is an offence, which may result in the Combined Authority issuing an Enforcement Notice to ensure compliance.[9]Quotes for the works were obtained as a matter of urgency, which is evidenced in the Applicant’s bundle, so that the necessary actions could be instructed as soon as possible, for the safety of the residents.[10]The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from a Respondent Leaseholder. Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.[11]The Tribunal convened without the parties to make its determination on 19 December 2022. Law[12]Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.[13]Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.[14]Section 20 of the Act states:- “Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements Where this Section applies to any qualifying works…… the relevant contributions of tenants are limited……. Unless the consultation requirements have either:-a. complied with in relation to the works orb. dispensed with in relation to the works by …… a tribunal. This Section applies to qualifying works, if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount”.[15]“The appropriate amount” is defined by regulation 6 of The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) as “……. an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00.”[16]Section 20ZA(1) of the Act states:- "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 ……..….. the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements." Tribunal’s Conclusions with Reasons[17]I have determined this matter following a consideration of the Applicant’s case but without holding a hearing. Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 permits a case to be dealt with in this manner provided that the parties give their consent (or do not object when a paper determination is proposed). In this case, the Applicant has given its consent and the Tribunal has not heard from a Respondent in response to the application. Moreover, having reviewed the case papers, I am satisfied that this matter is indeed suitable to be determined without a hearing. Determining this matter does not require me to decide disputed questions of fact.[18]It is not necessary to consider at this stage the extent of any service charges that may result from the works payable under the terms of the Respondents’ leases. If and when such is demanded, and if disputed, it may properly be the subject of a future application to the Tribunal.[19]Having considered the submission made by the Applicant I accept the urgent nature of the works. A consultation exercise would have added considerable delay. For the safety of all Residents, a decision was taken to act swiftly and carry out the necessary urgent works. The Applicant’s agent did keep leaseholders informed as to the progress of the works.[20]In Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 it was determined that a Tribunal, when considering whether to grant dispensation, should consider whether the tenants would be prejudiced by any failure to comply with the Consultation Requirements. Balancing the need for urgent action against dispensing with statutory requirements devised to protect service charge paying Leaseholders, I conclude that the urgency outweighs any identified prejudice. Dispensation from consultation requirements does not imply that any resulting service charge is reasonable. Order[21]The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the work specified in the application. Laurence J Bennett Tribunal Judge 19 December 2022 Annex - List of Respondent Leaseholders and Unit Number Leaseholder Unit Archibald Hart 1 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Owens 2 Knowles Court Jennifer Leanne Grayson-Allcock 3 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 4 Knowles Court Andrew Watkins 5 Knowles Court Mr Sanjay Doshi 6 Knowles Court Miss Elspeth Ryner 7 Knowles Court Miss I M Halliwell 8 Knowles Court Mr Anthony Nicholls 9 Knowles Court Amy Yu Di Chan 10 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Piggott 11 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Hitchcock 12 Knowles Court Mrs D Murphy 13 Knowles Court Mrs Kathleen Kelly 14 Knowles Court Miss J Dudley 15 Knowles Court Sean & Vivien Rourke 16 Knowles Court Mrs Uttley 17 Knowles Court Mr Sodawala 18 Knowles Court Mr Campbell 19 Knowles Court Janice & Kenneth Fletcher 20 Knowles Court Mr Alan Gay 21 Knowles Court Mr Heywood 22 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs E Smith 23 Knowles Court Mr Crankshaw 24 Knowles Court Berron Limited 25 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Wolstenholme 26 Knowles Court Deen Enterprise 27 Knowles Court Miss Kerry O’Sullivan 28 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Murphy 29 Knowles Court Miss Susan Wroe 30 Knowles Court Miss Gail Brough 31 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 32 Knowles Court M & Mrs Parkins 33 Knowles Court Miss Lynda Smith 34 Knowles Court Mr Edward Walker 35 Knowles Court Mr Kaduji 36 Knowles Court Paul & David Burgess 37 Knowles Court Miss Denise Coulston 38 Knowles Court Joseph Daniel Brierley 39 Knowles Court Dr S Agrawal 40 Knowles Court Case Reference : MAN/00BN/LDC/2022/0039 Property : Knowles Court, Eccles Road, Salford M6 8ES Applicant : Opengate Residents Association Limited Representative : Thornley Groves Respondents : Long Residential Leaseholders at the Property Type of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA Tribunal Member : Judge L Bennett Date of determination : 19 December 2022 Date of Decision : 19 December 2022 _______________________________________________ DECISION ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022 Application[1]Opengate Residents Association Limited applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) for dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) in respect of Fire Safety Works (the Works) carried out at Knowles Court (the Property).[2]The Respondents are the Long Residential Leaseholders at the Property and listed at the Annex to this decision. Grounds and Submissions[3]The application was received by the Tribunal on 5 May 2022.[4]The Applicant is the resident management company with responsibility for the building.[5]The Tribunal did not carry out an inspection but understands that the Property comprises 2 x 3 storey buildings, constructed of traditional brick cavity walls with block and beam floors, with a flat roof, housing 40 individual flats.[6]On 22 July 2022, a Tribunal Judge made directions requiring the service of documents by the Applicant upon each of the Respondents. The directions provided that in the absence of a request for a hearing the application would be determined upon the parties’ written submissions. However, it later came to light that not all the leaseholder Respondents were included in the Applicant’s original application. A Tribunal Legal Officer therefore made further directions on 5 October 2022. The Applicant amended its application to include all 40 of the leaseholders at Knowles Court and was directed to serve a copy of its case bundle and the Tribunal directions upon each Respondent Leaseholder. The Applicant’s Representative confirmed on 27 October 2022 that the bundle had been served on all of the Respondents.[7]The Applicant has provided a statement explaining why the application was made to the Tribunal together with supporting documents.[8]On 27 October 2021, the Applicant made arrangements to meet with Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. On 16 November 2021, a Fire Risk Assessment was undertaken by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. A number of fire safety issues were found and an action plan was drawn up in order to remedy those issues. On 31 January 2022, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service wrote to the Applicant confirming the breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and listing the areas of non-compliance. It stated that the areas of non-compliance were considered serious but able to be rectified. Failure to comply with the Regulations is an offence, which may result in the Combined Authority issuing an Enforcement Notice to ensure compliance.[9]Quotes for the works were obtained as a matter of urgency, which is evidenced in the Applicant’s bundle, so that the necessary actions could be instructed as soon as possible, for the safety of the residents.[10]The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from a Respondent Leaseholder. Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.[11]The Tribunal convened without the parties to make its determination on 19 December 2022. Law[12]Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.[13]Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.[14]Section 20 of the Act states:- “Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements Where this Section applies to any qualifying works…… the relevant contributions of tenants are limited……. Unless the consultation requirements have either:-a. complied with in relation to the works orb. dispensed with in relation to the works by …… a tribunal. This Section applies to qualifying works, if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount”.[15]“The appropriate amount” is defined by regulation 6 of The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) as “……. an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00.”[16]Section 20ZA(1) of the Act states:- "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 ……..….. the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements." Tribunal’s Conclusions with Reasons[17]I have determined this matter following a consideration of the Applicant’s case but without holding a hearing. Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 permits a case to be dealt with in this manner provided that the parties give their consent (or do not object when a paper determination is proposed). In this case, the Applicant has given its consent and the Tribunal has not heard from a Respondent in response to the application. Moreover, having reviewed the case papers, I am satisfied that this matter is indeed suitable to be determined without a hearing. Determining this matter does not require me to decide disputed questions of fact.[18]It is not necessary to consider at this stage the extent of any service charges that may result from the works payable under the terms of the Respondents’ leases. If and when such is demanded, and if disputed, it may properly be the subject of a future application to the Tribunal.[19]Having considered the submission made by the Applicant I accept the urgent nature of the works. A consultation exercise would have added considerable delay. For the safety of all Residents, a decision was taken to act swiftly and carry out the necessary urgent works. The Applicant’s agent did keep leaseholders informed as to the progress of the works.[20]In Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 it was determined that a Tribunal, when considering whether to grant dispensation, should consider whether the tenants would be prejudiced by any failure to comply with the Consultation Requirements. Balancing the need for urgent action against dispensing with statutory requirements devised to protect service charge paying Leaseholders, I conclude that the urgency outweighs any identified prejudice. Dispensation from consultation requirements does not imply that any resulting service charge is reasonable. Order[21]The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the work specified in the application. Laurence J Bennett Tribunal Judge 19 December 2022 Annex - List of Respondent Leaseholders and Unit Number Leaseholder Unit Archibald Hart 1 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Owens 2 Knowles Court Jennifer Leanne Grayson-Allcock 3 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 4 Knowles Court Andrew Watkins 5 Knowles Court Mr Sanjay Doshi 6 Knowles Court Miss Elspeth Ryner 7 Knowles Court Miss I M Halliwell 8 Knowles Court Mr Anthony Nicholls 9 Knowles Court Amy Yu Di Chan 10 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Piggott 11 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Hitchcock 12 Knowles Court Mrs D Murphy 13 Knowles Court Mrs Kathleen Kelly 14 Knowles Court Miss J Dudley 15 Knowles Court Sean & Vivien Rourke 16 Knowles Court Mrs Uttley 17 Knowles Court Mr Sodawala 18 Knowles Court Mr Campbell 19 Knowles Court Janice & Kenneth Fletcher 20 Knowles Court Mr Alan Gay 21 Knowles Court Mr Heywood 22 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs E Smith 23 Knowles Court Mr Crankshaw 24 Knowles Court Berron Limited 25 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Wolstenholme 26 Knowles Court Deen Enterprise 27 Knowles Court Miss Kerry O’Sullivan 28 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Murphy 29 Knowles Court Miss Susan Wroe 30 Knowles Court Miss Gail Brough 31 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 32 Knowles Court M & Mrs Parkins 33 Knowles Court Miss Lynda Smith 34 Knowles Court Mr Edward Walker 35 Knowles Court Mr Kaduji 36 Knowles Court Paul & David Burgess 37 Knowles Court Miss Denise Coulston 38 Knowles Court Joseph Daniel Brierley 39 Knowles Court Dr S Agrawal 40 Knowles Court Case Reference : MAN/00BN/LDC/2022/0039 Property : Knowles Court, Eccles Road, Salford M6 8ES Applicant : Opengate Residents Association Limited Representative : Thornley Groves Respondents : Long Residential Leaseholders at the Property Type of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA Tribunal Member : Judge L Bennett Date of determination : 19 December 2022 Date of Decision : 19 December 2022 _______________________________________________ DECISION ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022 Application[1]Opengate Residents Association Limited applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) for dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) in respect of Fire Safety Works (the Works) carried out at Knowles Court (the Property).[2]The Respondents are the Long Residential Leaseholders at the Property and listed at the Annex to this decision. Grounds and Submissions[3]The application was received by the Tribunal on 5 May 2022.[4]The Applicant is the resident management company with responsibility for the building.[5]The Tribunal did not carry out an inspection but understands that the Property comprises 2 x 3 storey buildings, constructed of traditional brick cavity walls with block and beam floors, with a flat roof, housing 40 individual flats.[6]On 22 July 2022, a Tribunal Judge made directions requiring the service of documents by the Applicant upon each of the Respondents. The directions provided that in the absence of a request for a hearing the application would be determined upon the parties’ written submissions. However, it later came to light that not all the leaseholder Respondents were included in the Applicant’s original application. A Tribunal Legal Officer therefore made further directions on 5 October 2022. The Applicant amended its application to include all 40 of the leaseholders at Knowles Court and was directed to serve a copy of its case bundle and the Tribunal directions upon each Respondent Leaseholder. The Applicant’s Representative confirmed on 27 October 2022 that the bundle had been served on all of the Respondents.[7]The Applicant has provided a statement explaining why the application was made to the Tribunal together with supporting documents.[8]On 27 October 2021, the Applicant made arrangements to meet with Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. On 16 November 2021, a Fire Risk Assessment was undertaken by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. A number of fire safety issues were found and an action plan was drawn up in order to remedy those issues. On 31 January 2022, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service wrote to the Applicant confirming the breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and listing the areas of non-compliance. It stated that the areas of non-compliance were considered serious but able to be rectified. Failure to comply with the Regulations is an offence, which may result in the Combined Authority issuing an Enforcement Notice to ensure compliance.[9]Quotes for the works were obtained as a matter of urgency, which is evidenced in the Applicant’s bundle, so that the necessary actions could be instructed as soon as possible, for the safety of the residents.[10]The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from a Respondent Leaseholder. Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.[11]The Tribunal convened without the parties to make its determination on 19 December 2022. Law[12]Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.[13]Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.[14]Section 20 of the Act states:- “Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements Where this Section applies to any qualifying works…… the relevant contributions of tenants are limited……. Unless the consultation requirements have either:-a. complied with in relation to the works orb. dispensed with in relation to the works by …… a tribunal. This Section applies to qualifying works, if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount”.[15]“The appropriate amount” is defined by regulation 6 of The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) as “……. an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00.”[16]Section 20ZA(1) of the Act states:- "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 ……..….. the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements." Tribunal’s Conclusions with Reasons[17]I have determined this matter following a consideration of the Applicant’s case but without holding a hearing. Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 permits a case to be dealt with in this manner provided that the parties give their consent (or do not object when a paper determination is proposed). In this case, the Applicant has given its consent and the Tribunal has not heard from a Respondent in response to the application. Moreover, having reviewed the case papers, I am satisfied that this matter is indeed suitable to be determined without a hearing. Determining this matter does not require me to decide disputed questions of fact.[18]It is not necessary to consider at this stage the extent of any service charges that may result from the works payable under the terms of the Respondents’ leases. If and when such is demanded, and if disputed, it may properly be the subject of a future application to the Tribunal.[19]Having considered the submission made by the Applicant I accept the urgent nature of the works. A consultation exercise would have added considerable delay. For the safety of all Residents, a decision was taken to act swiftly and carry out the necessary urgent works. The Applicant’s agent did keep leaseholders informed as to the progress of the works.[20]In Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 it was determined that a Tribunal, when considering whether to grant dispensation, should consider whether the tenants would be prejudiced by any failure to comply with the Consultation Requirements. Balancing the need for urgent action against dispensing with statutory requirements devised to protect service charge paying Leaseholders, I conclude that the urgency outweighs any identified prejudice. Dispensation from consultation requirements does not imply that any resulting service charge is reasonable. Order[21]The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the work specified in the application. Laurence J Bennett Tribunal Judge 19 December 2022 Annex - List of Respondent Leaseholders and Unit Number Leaseholder Unit Archibald Hart 1 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Owens 2 Knowles Court Jennifer Leanne Grayson-Allcock 3 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 4 Knowles Court Andrew Watkins 5 Knowles Court Mr Sanjay Doshi 6 Knowles Court Miss Elspeth Ryner 7 Knowles Court Miss I M Halliwell 8 Knowles Court Mr Anthony Nicholls 9 Knowles Court Amy Yu Di Chan 10 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Piggott 11 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Hitchcock 12 Knowles Court Mrs D Murphy 13 Knowles Court Mrs Kathleen Kelly 14 Knowles Court Miss J Dudley 15 Knowles Court Sean & Vivien Rourke 16 Knowles Court Mrs Uttley 17 Knowles Court Mr Sodawala 18 Knowles Court Mr Campbell 19 Knowles Court Janice & Kenneth Fletcher 20 Knowles Court Mr Alan Gay 21 Knowles Court Mr Heywood 22 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs E Smith 23 Knowles Court Mr Crankshaw 24 Knowles Court Berron Limited 25 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Wolstenholme 26 Knowles Court Deen Enterprise 27 Knowles Court Miss Kerry O’Sullivan 28 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Murphy 29 Knowles Court Miss Susan Wroe 30 Knowles Court Miss Gail Brough 31 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 32 Knowles Court M & Mrs Parkins 33 Knowles Court Miss Lynda Smith 34 Knowles Court Mr Edward Walker 35 Knowles Court Mr Kaduji 36 Knowles Court Paul & David Burgess 37 Knowles Court Miss Denise Coulston 38 Knowles Court Joseph Daniel Brierley 39 Knowles Court Dr S Agrawal 40 Knowles Court Case Reference : MAN/00BN/LDC/2022/0039 Property : Knowles Court, Eccles Road, Salford M6 8ES Applicant : Opengate Residents Association Limited Representative : Thornley Groves Respondents : Long Residential Leaseholders at the Property Type of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA Tribunal Member : Judge L Bennett Date of determination : 19 December 2022 Date of Decision : 19 December 2022 _______________________________________________ DECISION ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022 Application[1]Opengate Residents Association Limited applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) for dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) in respect of Fire Safety Works (the Works) carried out at Knowles Court (the Property).[2]The Respondents are the Long Residential Leaseholders at the Property and listed at the Annex to this decision. Grounds and Submissions[3]The application was received by the Tribunal on 5 May 2022.[4]The Applicant is the resident management company with responsibility for the building.[5]The Tribunal did not carry out an inspection but understands that the Property comprises 2 x 3 storey buildings, constructed of traditional brick cavity walls with block and beam floors, with a flat roof, housing 40 individual flats.[6]On 22 July 2022, a Tribunal Judge made directions requiring the service of documents by the Applicant upon each of the Respondents. The directions provided that in the absence of a request for a hearing the application would be determined upon the parties’ written submissions. However, it later came to light that not all the leaseholder Respondents were included in the Applicant’s original application. A Tribunal Legal Officer therefore made further directions on 5 October 2022. The Applicant amended its application to include all 40 of the leaseholders at Knowles Court and was directed to serve a copy of its case bundle and the Tribunal directions upon each Respondent Leaseholder. The Applicant’s Representative confirmed on 27 October 2022 that the bundle had been served on all of the Respondents.[7]The Applicant has provided a statement explaining why the application was made to the Tribunal together with supporting documents.[8]On 27 October 2021, the Applicant made arrangements to meet with Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. On 16 November 2021, a Fire Risk Assessment was undertaken by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. A number of fire safety issues were found and an action plan was drawn up in order to remedy those issues. On 31 January 2022, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service wrote to the Applicant confirming the breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and listing the areas of non-compliance. It stated that the areas of non-compliance were considered serious but able to be rectified. Failure to comply with the Regulations is an offence, which may result in the Combined Authority issuing an Enforcement Notice to ensure compliance.[9]Quotes for the works were obtained as a matter of urgency, which is evidenced in the Applicant’s bundle, so that the necessary actions could be instructed as soon as possible, for the safety of the residents.[10]The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from a Respondent Leaseholder. Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.[11]The Tribunal convened without the parties to make its determination on 19 December 2022. Law[12]Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.[13]Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.[14]Section 20 of the Act states:- “Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements Where this Section applies to any qualifying works…… the relevant contributions of tenants are limited……. Unless the consultation requirements have either:-a. complied with in relation to the works orb. dispensed with in relation to the works by …… a tribunal. This Section applies to qualifying works, if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount”.[15]“The appropriate amount” is defined by regulation 6 of The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) as “……. an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00.”[16]Section 20ZA(1) of the Act states:- "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 ……..….. the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements." Tribunal’s Conclusions with Reasons[17]I have determined this matter following a consideration of the Applicant’s case but without holding a hearing. Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 permits a case to be dealt with in this manner provided that the parties give their consent (or do not object when a paper determination is proposed). In this case, the Applicant has given its consent and the Tribunal has not heard from a Respondent in response to the application. Moreover, having reviewed the case papers, I am satisfied that this matter is indeed suitable to be determined without a hearing. Determining this matter does not require me to decide disputed questions of fact.[18]It is not necessary to consider at this stage the extent of any service charges that may result from the works payable under the terms of the Respondents’ leases. If and when such is demanded, and if disputed, it may properly be the subject of a future application to the Tribunal.[19]Having considered the submission made by the Applicant I accept the urgent nature of the works. A consultation exercise would have added considerable delay. For the safety of all Residents, a decision was taken to act swiftly and carry out the necessary urgent works. The Applicant’s agent did keep leaseholders informed as to the progress of the works.[20]In Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 it was determined that a Tribunal, when considering whether to grant dispensation, should consider whether the tenants would be prejudiced by any failure to comply with the Consultation Requirements. Balancing the need for urgent action against dispensing with statutory requirements devised to protect service charge paying Leaseholders, I conclude that the urgency outweighs any identified prejudice. Dispensation from consultation requirements does not imply that any resulting service charge is reasonable. Order[21]The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the work specified in the application. Laurence J Bennett Tribunal Judge 19 December 2022 Annex - List of Respondent Leaseholders and Unit Number Leaseholder Unit Archibald Hart 1 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Owens 2 Knowles Court Jennifer Leanne Grayson-Allcock 3 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 4 Knowles Court Andrew Watkins 5 Knowles Court Mr Sanjay Doshi 6 Knowles Court Miss Elspeth Ryner 7 Knowles Court Miss I M Halliwell 8 Knowles Court Mr Anthony Nicholls 9 Knowles Court Amy Yu Di Chan 10 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Piggott 11 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Hitchcock 12 Knowles Court Mrs D Murphy 13 Knowles Court Mrs Kathleen Kelly 14 Knowles Court Miss J Dudley 15 Knowles Court Sean & Vivien Rourke 16 Knowles Court Mrs Uttley 17 Knowles Court Mr Sodawala 18 Knowles Court Mr Campbell 19 Knowles Court Janice & Kenneth Fletcher 20 Knowles Court Mr Alan Gay 21 Knowles Court Mr Heywood 22 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs E Smith 23 Knowles Court Mr Crankshaw 24 Knowles Court Berron Limited 25 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Wolstenholme 26 Knowles Court Deen Enterprise 27 Knowles Court Miss Kerry O’Sullivan 28 Knowles Court Mr & Mrs Murphy 29 Knowles Court Miss Susan Wroe 30 Knowles Court Miss Gail Brough 31 Knowles Court Gail Hazel Smith & E Smith 32 Knowles Court M & Mrs Parkins 33 Knowles Court Miss Lynda Smith 34 Knowles Court Mr Edward Walker 35 Knowles Court Mr Kaduji 36 Knowles Court Paul & David Burgess 37 Knowles Court Miss Denise Coulston 38 Knowles Court Joseph Daniel Brierley 39 Knowles Court Dr S Agrawal 40 Knowles Court