Various Properties in the Borough of Sefton Appellant : One Vision Housing Limited -represented by Trower Hamlins, Solicitors (Miss L James) MAN/00CA/LDC/2023/0020
DECISION
[1]21 The Tribunal’s power under Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is to determine that on an application to dispense with some or all of the consultation requirements under Section 20 it is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with those requirements.[2]22 It is clear that the proposal by the Applicant to dispense with a consultation has merit.(1) There is a clear benefit to be had from ensuring that only one contractor is used and that management of the scheme will be easier.(2) There will be far less likelihood 0f overlap in relation to time, effort and cost.(3) The logistical exercise of assessing individual properties or blocks of properties of various sizes to seek an appropriate level of involvement in the consultation process would be avoided. The Tribunal is minded to consider that a project such as that proposed will deter participation in any event. The fact that only 3 leaseholders have raised objections to this application may be evidence of that.[3]23 Whilst not producing clear evidence of financial prejudice in terms of likely basic contractual costs, those leaseholders who have objected have been able to articulate a number of concerns in relation to how the work will be managed and what the standard will be, particularly in the absence of any competition for the contract, even in the absence of any overlap with previous works.[4]24 With the benefit of hindsight explanations for the Applicant’s plans could have been clearer in relation to the purpose of a dispensation application and its relationship to a challenge in respect of reasonableness of costs. It might also have alleviated concerns over the extent of works relevant to particular properties if it had been clearer about the variable nature and extent of works yet to be fully assessed.[5]25 The Tribunal is nevertheless of the view that the there will be no prejudice to the Respondent leaseholders if a dispensation is granted to the Applicant solely on financial grounds. It is satisfied that upon the evidence adduced as to the relationship with Solveni and the evident benefits to be had from a single contractor working on all the relevant properties will outweigh the likely outcome of any consultation process.[6]26 The other concerns of those Respondents who have joined in the Tribunal process are real. Although the Tribunal did not meet Ms Vanriel her views echo those of Mr Rushford and her expression of them are suggestive of veracity. Work required to individual properties and their cost/benefit relationship are referred to above. The concerns about communication and contractors’ standards are less easily explained.[7]27 It would appear to be the case that whoever was chosen as contractor, by whatever means, there would always remain what the Respondents see as failures to respond to legitimate concerns and engage with the tenant body to its satisfaction. Those tenants are, however, unlikely to be any worse off and the Tribunal assumes it can take Mr Poland and Mr Stewart at their word about being appropriate points of contact in the future.[8]28 If what Mr Rushworth says about one previous contractor in particular and the standard of work it provided is accepted, (the Tribunal sees no reason not to accept it), there is nothing to suggest that the dispensation sought will provide anything worse and will conceivably be as good as, or better, than encountered previously.[9]29 Even though the Tribunal has determined that it is appropriate to dispense with compliance with the consultation requirements this does not prejudice the future rights of any leaseholder to challenge the reasonableness of any costs incurred in respect of the relevant works under Section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 relating to the service charges for the year(s) in question.[10]30 In the circumstances the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements to comply with Section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003.