Centenary Mill, New Hall Lane, Preston PR1 5JQ Appellant : Centenary Mill Court (Preston) RTM Company Limited MAN/30UK/LDC/2022/0038
DECISION
[1]23 The Tribunal has power under Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 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]24 On the evidence available to it the Tribunal is able to make the following determinations:(1) There was a serious risk of injury posed the water ingress to the former boiler room from the defects discovered on commencement of the earlier works.(2) It was a legitimate concern that work should be commenced at an early opportunity in order to minimise damage and risk.(3) It was appropriate in the circumstances to use the scaffolding currently in place and the contractors currently on site to commence the work as speedily as possible.(4) The managing agents made a reasonable assessment of the suitability of the contractor to carry out the work.(5) There is nothing to suggest that, on evidence currently available, there is a significant risk of any financial prejudice to the leaseholders over and above the inevitable costs of remedial works. Those costs may have been higher if delay had occurred.(6) It is conceivable that the Applicant and the managing agents may have been able to deal with the matter in a different way if steps had been taken earlier in relation to the proposals within the 2016 planning permission, but this is in no way clear on the evidence available to the Tribunal.(7) The Tribunal must consider the situation as it was known to the Applicant at the time the decision was made to dispense with the Section 20 consultation process. Respondents may be correct in asserting that they were deprived of an opportunity to provide input specifically provided to them by statute, but the decision, at the time it was made, was a reasonable one.[3]25 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.[4]26 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.