Channelsea House, Canning Road, London E15 3FA ((Leasehold) disputes (management) - Service charges) -[2020] UKFTT LON_00BB_LDC_2019_0177- (11 December 2020)

BAILII

Automated Summary

Key Facts

The First-Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber, issued a decision on 11 December 2020 (case LON/00BB/LDC/2019/0177) regarding Channelsea House, London. The Applicant, IDM Properties LLP, sought dispensation of consultation requirements under s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for building insurance renewal. The Tribunal found it reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements due to the immediate need to insure the building to avoid an uninsured period. The property is a substantial building with 72 flats and two commercial units.

Issues

The tribunal addressed whether dispensation of statutory consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was reasonable for building insurance renewal. The applicant renewed insurance for 18 months without full consultation to prevent coverage gaps, and the tribunal determined the circumstances justified dispensation.

Holdings

The Tribunal dispensed with the consultation requirements under s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as it was reasonable to do so. The decision was based on the immediate need to insure the building (with the previous policy expiring and the renewal quotes received shortly before expiry), which would have left the building uninsured had full consultation been required. The Tribunal considered the building's claims history, including a £789,693 claim in 2016/17 and the fact that Zurich renewed at 2018 rates only due to deteriorating claims experience, and found these circumstances justified dispensation.

Remedies

The Tribunal granted dispensation of consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for building insurance renewal, as the Applicant required immediate insurance coverage to avoid an uninsured period during policy renewal.

Legal Principles

The Tribunal determined that consultation requirements under s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 could be dispensed with under s.20ZA because it was reasonable to do so given the immediate need to insure the building for 18 months without a gap. The Tribunal emphasized the clear and immediate risk of the property being uninsured during the transition period, which would have occurred had full consultation been completed before policy renewal.

Cited Statute

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Judge Name

Simon Brilliant

Passage Text

  • The Tribunal is of the view that, in the particular circumstances of this case, involving a clear and immediate need to insure the building, it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of such insurance.
  • The Tribunal determines that those parts of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ("the Act") which have not been complied with are to be dispensed with.