Automated Summary
Key Facts
This case involves a retrospective application by Southern Land Securities Limited (via Together Property Management) under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for property at 4 North End Road, Edmonton, London N9 7QY. The applicant sought dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for installing a rear timber fence (costing £1770.00 ex VAT) to address health and safety concerns raised by the London Borough of Enfield regarding fly-tipping in the rear garden. The works were carried out without prior consultation due to urgency, as the local authority threatened a formal notice. The Tribunal granted the application, finding the works sufficiently urgent to justify dispensation, but made no finding on cost liability.
Issues
The Tribunal determined that the installation of a rear fence to address health and safety concerns from fly-tipping was urgent enough to dispense with the statutory consultation process. The Applicant had no reasonable opportunity to complete the consultation before the local authority threatened formal action, and thus the Tribunal granted the dispensation.
Holdings
The Tribunal granted the application for dispensation of consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, finding the rear fence installation at 4 North End Road, Edmonton was urgently required due to health and safety risks from fly-tipping and a local authority threat. The Tribunal made no finding on the reasonableness of the costs.
Remedies
The Tribunal grants dispensation of consultation requirements for the rear fence installation, which was deemed urgent due to health and safety concerns and a threat of a local authority notice.
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied the urgency exception under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, finding that health and safety concerns and a threat of local authority action justified dispensing with consultation requirements for the installation of a rear fence.
Cited Statute
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Judge Name
Judge Shaw
Passage Text
- The Tribunal is satisfied that these works were urgently required, without the need for the full consultation process to proceed, and accordingly the Tribunal makes the Order requested, for the reasons relied upon by the Applicant, dispensing with the statutory consultation requirements.
- The Tribunal does not enter into this aspect of the dispute in the context of this application. The issue before the Tribunal is whether it was reasonable for the Applicant to go ahead and do this work without pursuing first the statutory consultation process (which would have taken several months). The Tribunal is so satisfied. There was a health and safety issue in this case and urgency brought about both by this aspect and the sanction of a formal notice which was being threatened by the local authority.