Lea Court, Madeley, Crewe, Cheshire CW3 9DN MAN/00EQ/LDC/2023/0061

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No MAN/00EQ/LDC/2023/0061
Between
Housing 21ApplicantVarious Long Residential Leaseholders - See Annex ARespondent
Before
Judge J HolbrookGemma Hartshorn, Housing & Care Manager for the ApplicantDate 19 February 2024Property: Lea Court, Madeley, Crewe, Cheshire CW3 9DNType of application: Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA

DECISION

[1]Housing 21 applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of the 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 Qualifying Works at the property. The qualifying works concern replacement of the emergency call system.[2]The Respondents are the Long Residential Leaseholders at the Properties and listed at Annex A to this decision. Grounds and Submissions[3]The application to the Tribunal was received on 16 September 2023. The Applicant is the landlord of the property.[5]The Tribunal did not carry out an inspection but understands from the papers that Lea Court consists of 63, 2 bedroomed apartments, which are a mixture of rented and leasehold properties that are purpose built for residents who receive extra care or have a support need.[6]On 30 November 2023, a Tribunal Legal Officer 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.[7]The Applicant has provided a statement of case explaining why the application was made to the Tribunal together with supporting documents. It is summarised below.[8]The Applicant recognises that the telecoms infrastructure will change to a digital environment by 2025. Analogue systems installed now could become obsolete way in advance of their expected lifecycles. There is a corporate recognition of the need to move to a more reliable and contemporary service.[9]Due to the increasing unreliability to the emergency call system at Lea Court and the potential risks to the health and safety of residents, the Applicant decided that the system should be replaced as soon as possible.[10]The Applicant therefore explored the market to invest in a suitable digital system. The chosen Appello Smart Living Solutions system is currently the only fully digital emergency call system available that uses secure encryption to authenticate and encrypt both data and speech. There are a limited number of other digital systems that offer general functionality comparable to analogue systems, but they have limited health and safety features in comparison to the Appello system. Although there are a few systems that provide a digital service on site, no other provider supports a fully encrypted digital onsite and offsite pathway. The Applicant has provided a detailed quotation from Appello Smart Living Solutions dated 30 November 2023. The gross price is £106, 191.18 which is £1,685.57 per unit. The installation rates have also been evaluated against another contractor who priced the installation of the digital installation and Appello were found to be more competitive. In addition, Appello are the only company able to supply a digital end to end solution.[11]On 3 January 2024, the Applicant held a consultation meeting at Lea Court. The agenda included:• PROPOSED START ONSITE & FORECAST COMPLETION• CONTRACTOR START & FINISH TIMES• WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN WORK STARTS ON COURT• IMPACT UPON THE COURT & RESIDENTS• QUESTIONS[12]The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from Respondent leaseholders. Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.[13]The Tribunal therefore convened without the parties to make its determination on 19 February 2024. Law[14]Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.[15]Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.[16]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”.[17]“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.”[18]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[19]The only issue for the Tribunal to decide is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. The Tribunal began with a general review of the papers in order to decide whether the case could be dealt with properly without holding an oral 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). None of the parties requested an oral hearing and having reviewed the papers, I am satisfied that this matter is suitable to be determined without a hearing.[20]Having considered the submissions made by the Applicant I accept that it is necessary and appropriate to replace an unreliable system with a more robust and contemporary system for the health and safety of the residents. The Applicant has informed the leaseholders about the works, albeit outside of the consultation requirements, and notified leaseholders of the application to the Tribunal giving the reasons why it believes the application is necessary.[21]The Supreme Court in the case of Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others [2013] UKSC 14 set out detailed guidance as to the correct approach to the grant or refusal of dispensation of the consultation requirements. 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. Daejan confirms that the factual burden is on a tenant to identify any “relevant prejudice” which they claim they will or might have suffered. In this context “relative prejudice” means a disadvantage that they would not have suffered if the consultation requirements had been fully complied with, but which they will suffer if an unconditional dispensation is granted. After carefully considering all the evidence and noting that none of the leaseholders has indicated to the Tribunal any objection to the application, I have not identified any relevant prejudice to the leaseholders, and I am therefore satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements unconditionally. 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. Dispensation from the consultation requirements does not imply that any resulting service charge is reasonable. The leaseholders retain the ability to make an application the Tribunal should they wish to challenge the costs of the works in the future. Order[23]The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the works specified in the application. Judge J Holbrook 19 February 2024 Annex A – List of Respondents Mr & Mrs Durham Kathleen Powner Margaret Worrall Mr & Mrs Stanier Patricia Phillips Jean Weaver Dave & Cathy Wright Gary Thorpe Dave & Nina Hale June Beeston Elizabeth Morrell Martin Sadler Elizabeth Humphries Mary Corfield Carol Nixen Peter Hogan Doreen Wrigley Irene Wilson Anne Edwards Margaret Baines Dorothy Richardson Christine Hutchins Audrey Park June Potter Terrance Greatbatch Mr & Mrs Tucker Doris Sutton Bryan & Cynthia Hope Elaine Lloyd Graham Ikin Joseph Pritchard Violet Simon Janet Allen Jeanette Walley Marjorie & Ray Hardy Jean Jennings Jean & Bob Perrin Thalia Wright Pamela Howe John Preston Robert Hilditch Geoff Bosworth Rita Whelan Shelagh Robinson Gordon & Gail Mackie Dave & Edna Peake-Fives Thelma Pile Kathleen Platt Raymond Birks Dorothy Walker Jill Goodwin Dorothy Johnson Peter Rixham[61]John Procter Case Reference : MAN/00EQ/LDC/2023/0061 Property : Lea Court, Madeley, Crewe, Cheshire CW3 9DN Applicant : Housing 21 Representative : Gemma Hartshorn, Housing & Care Manager Respondents : Various Long Residential Leaseholders - See Annex A Type of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA Tribunal Member : Judge J Holbrook Date of Decision : 19 February 2024 _______________________________________________ DECISION ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024 Application[1]Housing 21 applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of the 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 Qualifying Works at the property. The qualifying works concern replacement of the emergency call system.[2]The Respondents are the Long Residential Leaseholders at the Properties and listed at Annex A to this decision. Grounds and Submissions[3]The application to the Tribunal was received on 16 September 2023. The Applicant is the landlord of the property.[5]The Tribunal did not carry out an inspection but understands from the papers that Lea Court consists of 63, 2 bedroomed apartments, which are a mixture of rented and leasehold properties that are purpose built for residents who receive extra care or have a support need.[6]On 30 November 2023, a Tribunal Legal Officer 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.[7]The Applicant has provided a statement of case explaining why the application was made to the Tribunal together with supporting documents. It is summarised below.[8]The Applicant recognises that the telecoms infrastructure will change to a digital environment by 2025. Analogue systems installed now could become obsolete way in advance of their expected lifecycles. There is a corporate recognition of the need to move to a more reliable and contemporary service.[9]Due to the increasing unreliability to the emergency call system at Lea Court and the potential risks to the health and safety of residents, the Applicant decided that the system should be replaced as soon as possible.[10]The Applicant therefore explored the market to invest in a suitable digital system. The chosen Appello Smart Living Solutions system is currently the only fully digital emergency call system available that uses secure encryption to authenticate and encrypt both data and speech. There are a limited number of other digital systems that offer general functionality comparable to analogue systems, but they have limited health and safety features in comparison to the Appello system. Although there are a few systems that provide a digital service on site, no other provider supports a fully encrypted digital onsite and offsite pathway. The Applicant has provided a detailed quotation from Appello Smart Living Solutions dated 30 November 2023. The gross price is £106, 191.18 which is £1,685.57 per unit. The installation rates have also been evaluated against another contractor who priced the installation of the digital installation and Appello were found to be more competitive. In addition, Appello are the only company able to supply a digital end to end solution.[11]On 3 January 2024, the Applicant held a consultation meeting at Lea Court. The agenda included:• PROPOSED START ONSITE & FORECAST COMPLETION• CONTRACTOR START & FINISH TIMES• WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN WORK STARTS ON COURT• IMPACT UPON THE COURT & RESIDENTS• QUESTIONS[12]The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from Respondent leaseholders. Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.[13]The Tribunal therefore convened without the parties to make its determination on 19 February 2024. Law[14]Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.[15]Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.[16]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”.[17]“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.”[18]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[19]The only issue for the Tribunal to decide is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. The Tribunal began with a general review of the papers in order to decide whether the case could be dealt with properly without holding an oral 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). None of the parties requested an oral hearing and having reviewed the papers, I am satisfied that this matter is suitable to be determined without a hearing.[20]Having considered the submissions made by the Applicant I accept that it is necessary and appropriate to replace an unreliable system with a more robust and contemporary system for the health and safety of the residents. The Applicant has informed the leaseholders about the works, albeit outside of the consultation requirements, and notified leaseholders of the application to the Tribunal giving the reasons why it believes the application is necessary.[21]The Supreme Court in the case of Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others [2013] UKSC 14 set out detailed guidance as to the correct approach to the grant or refusal of dispensation of the consultation requirements. 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. Daejan confirms that the factual burden is on a tenant to identify any “relevant prejudice” which they claim they will or might have suffered. In this context “relative prejudice” means a disadvantage that they would not have suffered if the consultation requirements had been fully complied with, but which they will suffer if an unconditional dispensation is granted. After carefully considering all the evidence and noting that none of the leaseholders has indicated to the Tribunal any objection to the application, I have not identified any relevant prejudice to the leaseholders, and I am therefore satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements unconditionally. 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. Dispensation from the consultation requirements does not imply that any resulting service charge is reasonable. The leaseholders retain the ability to make an application the Tribunal should they wish to challenge the costs of the works in the future. Order[23]The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the works specified in the application. Judge J Holbrook 19 February 2024 Annex A – List of Respondents Mr & Mrs Durham Kathleen Powner Margaret Worrall Mr & Mrs Stanier Patricia Phillips Jean Weaver Dave & Cathy Wright Gary Thorpe Dave & Nina Hale June Beeston Elizabeth Morrell Martin Sadler Elizabeth Humphries Mary Corfield Carol Nixen Peter Hogan Doreen Wrigley Irene Wilson Anne Edwards Margaret Baines Dorothy Richardson Christine Hutchins Audrey Park June Potter Terrance Greatbatch Mr & Mrs Tucker Doris Sutton Bryan & Cynthia Hope Elaine Lloyd Graham Ikin Joseph Pritchard Violet Simon Janet Allen Jeanette Walley Marjorie & Ray Hardy Jean Jennings Jean & Bob Perrin Thalia Wright Pamela Howe John Preston Robert Hilditch Geoff Bosworth Rita Whelan Shelagh Robinson Gordon & Gail Mackie Dave & Edna Peake-Fives Thelma Pile Kathleen Platt Raymond Birks Dorothy Walker Jill Goodwin Dorothy Johnson Peter Rixham[61]John Procter Case Reference : MAN/00EQ/LDC/2023/0061 Property : Lea Court, Madeley, Crewe, Cheshire CW3 9DN Applicant : Housing 21 Representative : Gemma Hartshorn, Housing & Care Manager Respondents : Various Long Residential Leaseholders - See Annex A Type of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA Tribunal Member : Judge J Holbrook Date of Decision : 19 February 2024 _______________________________________________ DECISION ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024 Application[1]Housing 21 applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of the 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 Qualifying Works at the property. The qualifying works concern replacement of the emergency call system.[2]The Respondents are the Long Residential Leaseholders at the Properties and listed at Annex A to this decision. Grounds and Submissions[3]The application to the Tribunal was received on 16 September 2023. The Applicant is the landlord of the property.[5]The Tribunal did not carry out an inspection but understands from the papers that Lea Court consists of 63, 2 bedroomed apartments, which are a mixture of rented and leasehold properties that are purpose built for residents who receive extra care or have a support need.[6]On 30 November 2023, a Tribunal Legal Officer 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.[7]The Applicant has provided a statement of case explaining why the application was made to the Tribunal together with supporting documents. It is summarised below.[8]The Applicant recognises that the telecoms infrastructure will change to a digital environment by 2025. Analogue systems installed now could become obsolete way in advance of their expected lifecycles. There is a corporate recognition of the need to move to a more reliable and contemporary service.[9]Due to the increasing unreliability to the emergency call system at Lea Court and the potential risks to the health and safety of residents, the Applicant decided that the system should be replaced as soon as possible.[10]The Applicant therefore explored the market to invest in a suitable digital system. The chosen Appello Smart Living Solutions system is currently the only fully digital emergency call system available that uses secure encryption to authenticate and encrypt both data and speech. There are a limited number of other digital systems that offer general functionality comparable to analogue systems, but they have limited health and safety features in comparison to the Appello system. Although there are a few systems that provide a digital service on site, no other provider supports a fully encrypted digital onsite and offsite pathway. The Applicant has provided a detailed quotation from Appello Smart Living Solutions dated 30 November 2023. The gross price is £106, 191.18 which is £1,685.57 per unit. The installation rates have also been evaluated against another contractor who priced the installation of the digital installation and Appello were found to be more competitive. In addition, Appello are the only company able to supply a digital end to end solution.[11]On 3 January 2024, the Applicant held a consultation meeting at Lea Court. The agenda included:• PROPOSED START ONSITE & FORECAST COMPLETION• CONTRACTOR START & FINISH TIMES• WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN WORK STARTS ON COURT• IMPACT UPON THE COURT & RESIDENTS• QUESTIONS[12]The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from Respondent leaseholders. Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.[13]The Tribunal therefore convened without the parties to make its determination on 19 February 2024. Law[14]Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.[15]Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.[16]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”.[17]“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.”[18]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[19]The only issue for the Tribunal to decide is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. The Tribunal began with a general review of the papers in order to decide whether the case could be dealt with properly without holding an oral 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). None of the parties requested an oral hearing and having reviewed the papers, I am satisfied that this matter is suitable to be determined without a hearing.[20]Having considered the submissions made by the Applicant I accept that it is necessary and appropriate to replace an unreliable system with a more robust and contemporary system for the health and safety of the residents. The Applicant has informed the leaseholders about the works, albeit outside of the consultation requirements, and notified leaseholders of the application to the Tribunal giving the reasons why it believes the application is necessary.[21]The Supreme Court in the case of Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others [2013] UKSC 14 set out detailed guidance as to the correct approach to the grant or refusal of dispensation of the consultation requirements. 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. Daejan confirms that the factual burden is on a tenant to identify any “relevant prejudice” which they claim they will or might have suffered. In this context “relative prejudice” means a disadvantage that they would not have suffered if the consultation requirements had been fully complied with, but which they will suffer if an unconditional dispensation is granted. After carefully considering all the evidence and noting that none of the leaseholders has indicated to the Tribunal any objection to the application, I have not identified any relevant prejudice to the leaseholders, and I am therefore satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements unconditionally. 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. Dispensation from the consultation requirements does not imply that any resulting service charge is reasonable. The leaseholders retain the ability to make an application the Tribunal should they wish to challenge the costs of the works in the future. Order[23]The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the works specified in the application. Judge J Holbrook 19 February 2024 Annex A – List of Respondents Mr & Mrs Durham Kathleen Powner Margaret Worrall Mr & Mrs Stanier Patricia Phillips Jean Weaver Dave & Cathy Wright Gary Thorpe Dave & Nina Hale June Beeston Elizabeth Morrell Martin Sadler Elizabeth Humphries Mary Corfield Carol Nixen Peter Hogan Doreen Wrigley Irene Wilson Anne Edwards Margaret Baines Dorothy Richardson Christine Hutchins Audrey Park June Potter Terrance Greatbatch Mr & Mrs Tucker Doris Sutton Bryan & Cynthia Hope Elaine Lloyd Graham Ikin Joseph Pritchard Violet Simon Janet Allen Jeanette Walley Marjorie & Ray Hardy Jean Jennings Jean & Bob Perrin Thalia Wright Pamela Howe John Preston Robert Hilditch Geoff Bosworth Rita Whelan Shelagh Robinson Gordon & Gail Mackie Dave & Edna Peake-Fives Thelma Pile Kathleen Platt Raymond Birks Dorothy Walker Jill Goodwin Dorothy Johnson Peter Rixham John Procter