Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicant, The Trustees of the Locker Foundation, applied for dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to bypass consultation requirements for urgently needed roofing works at Flats 65, 67, 69, 71, 73 & 75 Regency House in Birmingham. The works, required due to water ingress and potential health and safety risks, were estimated at up to £10,344.00. The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation on 6 August 2020, determining that leaseholders would not be prejudiced by the lack of consultation. The applicant accepted the lowest quote from Brindley Asphalt Limited (£4,486.80). The lease obligates lessees to contribute to maintenance costs, including roof repairs. No submissions were received from the respondents, and the decision allows for future challenges regarding cost reasonableness.
Issues
The tribunal considered whether to grant dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from statutory consultation requirements for urgent roofing works exceeding £250 per leaseholder. The Applicant argued the works were necessary to prevent ceiling collapses and water ingress in communal areas, citing health and safety risks. The tribunal evaluated three quotations, accepted the lowest estimate, and concluded leaseholders would not be prejudiced by the lack of consultation, referencing the Supreme Court's Daejan judgment on reasonable dispensation criteria.
Holdings
The Tribunal determined that the works are urgently required and that the Respondent leaseholders will not be prejudiced by the failure to consult. It concluded that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements under Section 20 of the 1985 Act, granting dispensation as a result.
Remedies
The Tribunal granted dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the 1985 Act for urgently required roofing works at the property. This decision was based on the Applicant's evidence of health and safety risks from water ingress and the assurance that leaseholders would not be prejudiced by the failure to consult. The dispensation applies specifically to the statutory consultation requirements, not contractual provisions in the lease.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Daejan Investments Limited v Benson et al [2013] UKSC 14 to evaluate dispensation under Section 20ZA of the 1985 Act. The key principle was determining whether the leaseholders would be prejudiced by the landlord's non-compliance with consultation requirements. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence demonstrated the works were urgently needed and that no prejudice would result, thereby granting dispensation.
Precedent Name
Daejan Investments Limited v Benson et al
Cited Statute
- Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
- Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013
- Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
- Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003
Judge Name
- Vernon Ward
- David R Salter
Passage Text
- It is clear to the Tribunal from the information supplied by the Applicant that works are urgently required to the roof of the property.
- The Tribunal has been provided with three quotations and the Applicant intends to instruct Brindley Asphalt Limited who had submitted the lowest estimate.
- The Tribunal is satisfied that the works are required and the Respondent leaseholders will not be prejudiced by the failure to consult. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that, on the evidence provided, it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements of section 20 of the 1985 Act. Dispensation is therefore granted.