Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves Londinium Tower in London, a modern development built around 2000 with 80 leasehold dwellings, maisonettes, a commercial unit, and a basement car park. On 10 February 2020, a fire alarm panel fault caused a power outage, necessitating a £1,000 daily 'waking watch' for safety until 21 February 2020. The applicant, Proxima GR Limited, retained a Mechanical and Electrical Engineer (£180/hour) and a Fire Consultant (£1,000/day) to address the issue. Power was reinstated by 21 February 2020. The applicant applied for urgent dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 on 14 February 2020, with no leaseholder opposition received. The tribunal granted dispensation for the waking watch, M&E engineer, Fire Consultant, remedial works contractors, and the works themselves, citing no prejudice to tenants.
Issues
The tribunal considered an application for dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent works related to fire safety at Londinium Tower. The key issue was whether the landlord's failure to consult leaseholders prior to the works caused any relevant prejudice, as per the Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 factors. The tribunal found no prejudice due to the lack of objections from leaseholders and granted dispensation for the waking watch, M&E engineer, Fire Consultant, and remedial works. The decision emphasized that the absence of consultation did not lead to unreasonable costs or substandard services.
Holdings
The tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the following works: the waking watch; the M&E engineer; the Fire Consultant; the contractor(s) carrying out the remedial works; and the remedial works. The tribunal makes no determination regarding the reasonableness or payability of service charge costs.
Remedies
- Dispensation granted for the remedial works
- Dispensation granted for the Fire Consultant
- Dispensation granted for the contractor(s) carrying out the remedial works
- Dispensation granted for the waking watch
- Dispensation granted for the M&E engineer
Legal Principles
- The legal burden of proof in relation to dispensation applications is on the landlord. The factual burden of identifying relevant prejudice is on the tenants.
- Relevant prejudice is narrowly defined as whether non-compliance with consultation requirements has caused unreasonable costs or services falling below a reasonable standard. The more serious the landlord's failure, the more likely tenants have suffered prejudice.
Precedent Name
Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson
Cited Statute
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Judge Name
N Carr
Passage Text
- 11. Section 20ZA of the Act states that the tribunal may determine that there should be dispensation from the consultation requirements set out in section 20 of the Act in respect of any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement when 'it is satisfied it is reasonable to do so'.
- 12. In the circumstances I consider it reasonable, in light of the facts, to dispense with the section 20 Notice requirements.
- 1 The tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the following works: (a) the waking watch; (b) the M&E engineer; (c) the Fire Consultant; (d) the contractor(s) carrying out the remedial works; and (e) the remedial works