Automated Summary
Key Facts
Adriatic Land 5 Limited (freehold owners of Hippersley Point, a 10-storey mixed-use building in London) applied for dispensation from consultation requirements under s 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to expedite fire safety remediation works. The building's external wall system contains combustible materials exceeding 18m height, requiring urgent replacement of cladding, installation of cavity barriers, and interim fire alarm system upgrades. The Applicants obtained tenders for these works but failed to complete statutory consultation with leaseholders, citing urgency and contractor availability issues. The Tribunal approved the dispensation, acknowledging the safety risks and practical challenges in obtaining alternative quotes, but prohibited the Applicants from recovering application costs from leaseholders.
Issues
- The Tribunal determined that the Applicants should be prohibited from seeking their costs of the dispensation application from the leaseholders. This was to prevent unfair cost imposition, as the dispensation was granted due to the leaseholders' inability to demonstrate prejudice, and the Applicants were acting to rectify an unsafe building.
- The Tribunal evaluated if the leaseholders suffered prejudice by not completing the consultation process for cladding works. Leaseholders argued that without full consultation, they couldn't obtain alternative estimates. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of prejudice as no comparative estimates were provided, and the high demand for contractors likely would have prevented them from getting alternative quotes even with consultation.
- The Tribunal assessed whether the urgent need for fire safety remediation in a building with combustible cladding justified dispensing with the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Applicants argued that the urgency of the works and the current demand for contractors made consultation impractical, while leaseholders contended that proper consultation could have allowed for alternative bids. The Tribunal concluded that the urgency was sufficient to grant dispensation.
Holdings
- The Tribunal approved the application for dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, citing the urgent need to address fire safety risks in the building. The decision emphasized that the building's current fire risk necessitated immediate remediation works and that delaying such works would cause greater prejudice to leaseholders.
- The Tribunal found no credible evidence of prejudice to leaseholders from the incomplete consultation process. Leaseholders did not provide comparative estimates for the works, and the Tribunal noted that obtaining alternative quotes would likely face the same challenges due to high demand for contractors. The urgency of fire safety compliance was prioritized over procedural delays.
- The dispensation was granted on the condition that the Applicants cannot seek reimbursement of their costs from the leaseholders. This was deemed unfair, as the Tribunal acknowledged the leaseholders' valid concerns and the dispensation's nature as a forbearance to address public safety risks.
Remedies
- The Tribunal has conditionally granted the dispensation, explicitly prohibiting the Applicants from recovering the costs of this application from the leaseholders at Hippersley Point, deeming it unfair to impose these costs on residents.
- The Tribunal has granted the application for dispensation under s 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing the Applicants to proceed without fulfilling consultation requirements for the cladding remediation works.
Legal Principles
- The Supreme Court in Daejan Investments v Benson held that the factual burden lies on the tenants to identify any prejudice they would suffer from the landlord's failure to comply with consultation requirements. Once a credible case is shown, the landlord must rebut it.
- The tribunal must assess the extent of prejudice caused by the failure to consult, focusing on whether the tenants would have been unfairly charged for inappropriate works or excessive costs if the consultation wasn't done.
Precedent Name
Daejan Investments v Benson
Cited Statute
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Judge Name
Chris Gowman
Passage Text
- The focus on any dispensation application has to be on prejudice suffered by leaseholders as a result of the failure to consult... The question of fire safety in large buildings is very much a live issue.
- Accordingly, the Tribunal has no hesitation in confirming that dispensation should be given in this case... the dispensation is given on condition that the Applicants are prohibited from seeking their costs of this application from the leaseholders.
- The Tribunal will allow the application for dispensation in this case. It is clear that the building is presently unsafe in terms of fire risk... This situation has to be rectified. It is simply not an option to delay works to unsafe premises.