Tate House, New York Road, Leeds LS2 7QW MAN/00DA/LDC/2024/0058

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No MAN/00DA/LDC/2024/0058

Between

Grey GR Limited PartnershipApplicant

The Leaseholders of the PropertyRespondent

Before

Judge R Anderson

Mr P Mountain

Date 1 May 2025

Hearing 2025-05-01

Property: Tate House, New York Road, Leeds LS2 7QW

Type of application: Dispensation pursuant to s20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

DECISION

Dispensation is granted unconditionally. Factual Background

[1]In this case the Applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

[2]The Applicant is Grey GR Limited Partnership (“The Applicant”).

[3]The necessary Respondents to the application are the leaseholders of the premises affected by the application which is Tate House New York Road, Leeds LS2 7QW (“The premises”).

[4]The premises are managed on behalf of the Applicants Inspired Property Management Limited. (“IPM”)

[5]The property is six story block containing 75 long leasehold 1 and 2 bedroom apartments. A sample copy of a lease was included in the Statement of Case and it is not in dispute that the Applicant is entitled to charge the Respondents a service charge.

[6]Following the raised awareness of fire risks in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, IPM commissioned a number of reports in respect of the fire safety at the premises. A full chronology is set out in paragraphs 9-16 of the Applicant’s statement of case (pages 17-20 of the bundle). The result of which is that various works being required to make the building safer and in the interim and improved fire alarm system was required and until the fire alarm system was installed, a waking watch was out in place. The Application

[7]The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of works, the extent of which is best set in paragraph 4 of the reply dated 1 April 2025 (p655 of the bundle) which states: “…The works are more particularly described as followsa. Internal compartmentalization works-provide and install all fire stopping and remedial works identified in the FSC report annexed to to the Applicants Statement of Case at “Annex C”. Miller Knight has been instructed by the Applicant to proceed with the internal compartmentalisation works and a copy of the Pre-Construction Services Agreement Contractors Proposals and a scope of “proposed solutions” is attached at “Annex A”

b. Fire alarm works- upgrade and extend the fire alarm system to a Category L5 system as referred. To within the National Fire Chief’s Council’s updated guidance on simultaneous evacuation. RMW Electrical and Data Limited (“RMW”) have been instructed to carry out this week. A copy of the invoices issued by RMW, totalling £149,976 including VAT are attached at “Annex B”

c. Works to be carried out by Clear Line- Clear Line have been instructed by the Applicant to carry out works to replace unsafe non-ACM cladding at the Premises, remove timber decking and other combustible fixings on the external balconies and roof terrace pursuant to a Pre-Construction Services Agreement dated 22 November 2023. The Pre-Construction Free agreed is £97,887.74.”

[8]For the avoidance of doubt in this decision any reference to “the Works” is defined by reference to the above extract from the Reply. The Responses

[9]Of the 75 leaseholders there were 5 responses from the following leaseholders:a. Paul and Gill Thorpe (Flat 45)

b. Caroline Mofid (Flat 25)

c. Robert McGourley (Flat 47)

d. Ian Farrar (Flat 15)

e. Dhaneshri Amen (Flat 41)

[10]Each of the responses is contained within the bundle but a summary of the points raised objecting to the application is as follows: a) The Works have yet to be undertaken or completed and are therefore not urgent an there is no reason why the Applicant could not have complied with the consultation process set out in Landlord and Tennant Act 1985; b) There has been a lack of information is respect of the Works c) Evacuation of the building instead a waking watch was not proposed to the leaseholders. d) Not clear that the best contractor has been selected and the fire alarm installation costs were higher than expected. e) Contractor nomination were provided by the some leaseholders in respect of the compartmentalisation works. f) The Applicant has failed to provide a certificate under the Building Safety Act 2022. g) It is not reasonable to dispense with consultation. h) If there was a consultation leaseholders could have obtained expert opinion or legal advice on the works.

[11]It was also suggested if the dispensation is granted it should be subject to a condition that all leaseholders are paid the costs of instructing a surveyor and/or lawyer.

[12]The Applicant provided its position into these objections within their reply. The law on dispensation

[13]The statutory basis for the application is found in s20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985: 20ZA Consultation requirements: supplementary(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.

[14]The leading judicial guidance in how to apply the tribunal’s discretion is set out in the supreme court decision of Daejan Investments v Benson

[2013] UKSC 14

and it worthwhile summarizing the facts and rationale in that case.

[15]The Supreme Court , allowing the appeal (Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC and Lord Wilson JSC dissenting), held that:• The correct legal test on an application to the Tribunal for dispensation is: “Would the flat owners suffer any relevant prejudice, and if so, what relevant prejudice, as a result of the landlord’s failure to comply with the requirements?”

• The purpose of the consultation procedure is to ensure leaseholders are protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than would be appropriate.

• In considering applications for dispensation the Tribunal should focus on whether the leaseholders were prejudiced in either respect by the landlord’s failure to comply. The Tribunal has the power to grant dispensation on appropriate terms and can impose conditions.

• The factual burden of identifying some relevant prejudice is on the leaseholders. Once they have shown a credible case for prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it.

• The onus is on the leaseholders to establish what steps they would have taken had the breach not happened and in what way their rights under (b) above have been prejudiced as a consequence.

[16]Accordingly, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was any prejudice that may have arisen out of the conduct of the applicant and whether it was reasonable for the Tribunal to grant dispensation following the guidance set out above and, if so, whether any conditions should be applied to that dispensation. Summary of Submissions at the Hearing

[17]At the hearing the tribunal had the benefit of submissions from counsel for the applicant and a number of the respondents.

[18]None of the parties advanced new arguments in respect of the positions and simply sort to underline and develop their positions set out in the papers.

[19]During the hearing it became apparent that the respondents did not have specific objections to granting dispensation in respect of the Works (as defined in para 7) but they did not want the Applicant to have a carte blanche to carry out any work. Any decision of this tribunal is limited to the Works (as defined in para 7).

[20]Additionally, much of the complaints from the Respondents were to do with the quality of communication from the Applicant and the fact that some of the information provided by the applicant had been provided at a time when the respondents had other pressing concerns in respect of the building. The Tribunal’s deliberations

[21]The Tribunal considered each of the respondent’s objections as summarized in paragraph 10 and made the following findings (using the same numbering as paragraph 10): a) Although, the Works had taken a long time to prepare and move forward, the commencing the investigative works was urgent and complying with consultation requirements would have resulted in further delay which was to be avoided; b) It is perhaps self-evident that if an applicant has not complied with the consultation requirements they will not have provided the respondents’ with full information. This was not a case where the applicants had provided no information and the correspondence contained with the bundle did show the applicant was attempting to keep the respondents informed and there had been partial if not complete consultation. An example of this was that the respondents had had the opportunity to suggest contractors; c) The costs of a waking watch do not form part of this application and it was not therefore for this tribunal to decide whether that was step was appropriate; d) It is not for this tribunal to assess whether the contractor selected is appropriate and the respondents will still have the opportunity to challenge the costs of work pursuant to s27A of Landlord & Tenant Act 1985. e) The applicant had contacted appropriate nominated contractors suggested by the respondents but for perfectly reasonable reasons had decided not to proceed with those nominated contractors; f) Any failure to provide a building safety certificate is not a proper consideration for the tribunal in respect of this application; g) Following the principles in Daejan the key issue for the tribunal to determine is whether there is any financial prejudice to the respondents specifically because of the lack of consultation and the respondents have failed to identify any in this case. h) The very nature of this application has allowed the leaseholders to choose to obtain expert and legal advice and they will still be entitled to obtain advice if they choose to challenge the service charge. Determination

[22]On its face the application has merit. It is clearly necessary to carry out the Works urgently. There was no evidence of prejudice of the type envisaged in Daejan being suffered by the leaseholders. Accordingly, the tribunal agrees to give dispensation unconditionally in relation to the application. It is emphasized again that the dispensation does not affect the leaseholders’ ability to challenge the service charges pursuant to s.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Judge Anderson 14 August 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 should be made on Form RP PTA available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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).