Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Applicant, Garden House Flats Management Limited, was granted dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to bypass consultation requirements for major roof works at Garden House, Calverley Street, Tunbridge Wells. The Tribunal found no prejudice to lessees, as the Respondents (Frasers Properties and lessees) did not oppose the application, and most lessees failed to respond. The decision is limited to dispensation from consultation, with no determination on the reasonableness or payability of the works' costs.
Issues
The main issue was whether it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 regarding major works to the roof of a block of flats, without determining the reasonableness or payability of the works' costs.
Holdings
- The Applicant is granted dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act in respect of major works to the roof of the block of flats. The Tribunal found that the Respondents have not suffered any prejudice by the failure to follow the consultation process, as they did not oppose the application and no credible case of prejudice was advanced.
- The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of the works are reasonable or payable. If a leaseholder wishes to challenge the reasonableness of those costs, a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1968 would be required.
Remedies
The Applicant is granted dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act in respect of major works to the roof of the block of flats.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal applied the legal principle established in Daejan Investment Limited v Benson et al [2013] UKSC 14, focusing on whether lessees were or would be prejudiced by the failure to consult before major works. The consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were deemed 'a means to an end, not an end in themselves.' The burden of demonstrating prejudice lies with the lessee, and if not met, the Tribunal may reasonably dispense with consultation. The Upper Tribunal's recent decision in Aster Communities v Kerry Chapman and Others [2020] UKUT 177 (LC) reinforced that dispensation can be granted without addressing the reasonableness of service charges.
Precedent Name
- Aster Communities v Kerry Chapman and Others
- Daejan Investment Limited v Benson et al
Cited Statute
- Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
- Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013
Judge Name
Judge J Dobson
Passage Text
- The Tribunal finds that the Respondents have not suffered any prejudice by the failure of the Applicant to follow the consultation process. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that it is reasonable to dispense with all of the formal consultation requirements in respect of the major works to the roof of the building.
- The Applicant is granted dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act in respect of major works to the roof of the block of flats. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of the works are reasonable or payable.
- The appropriate approach to be taken by the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Daejan Investment Limited v Benson et al [2013] UKSC 14.