Automated Summary
Key Facts
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) granted unconditional dispensation to Sunettee Zone from complying with statutory consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The dispensation relates to urgent qualifying works (replacement of balcony doors and associated leak repairs) at 69 Johnson Street, London E1 0AQ, a purpose-built block of 13 flats. The Applicant served a Stage 1 Notice of Intention but failed to fully comply with consultation procedures. No leaseholders objected to the application, and there was no evidence of prejudice to respondents. The tribunal determined the works were necessary to address water ingress causing property damage and health risks, and the lack of consultation did not harm leaseholders.
Issues
The tribunal determined whether it was reasonable to unconditionally dispense with the consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to balcony doors causing leaks, given the Applicant's partial compliance, the lack of objections from leaseholders, and the absence of any evidence of prejudice to them as per the Daejan v Benson case.
Holdings
The tribunal unconditionally dispensed with the consultation requirements not complied with by the Applicant in relation to the qualifying works on balcony doors and associated leak issues. The decision was based on the lack of prejudice to leaseholders and the unopposed application.
Remedies
The tribunal granted unconditional dispensation from compliance with the consultation requirements not met by the Applicant in relation to qualifying works on balcony doors and associated leak repairs at 69 Johnson Street, London E1 0AQ.
Legal Principles
The tribunal may dispense with statutory consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if satisfied it is reasonable to do so, particularly where leaseholders have not suffered real prejudice from non-compliance. This aligns with the Supreme Court's guidance in Daejan v Benson (2013) that the key consideration is whether leaseholders have been prejudiced by the failure to consult.
Precedent Name
Daejan Investments Limited v Benson and others
Cited Statute
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Judge Name
Judge P Korn
Passage Text
- Furthermore, none of the Respondents has suggested that there has been any prejudice to leaseholders as a result of the failure to comply with the statutory consultation requirements.
- The tribunal has a wide discretion as to whether it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements, and on the facts of this case in the light of the points noted above I consider that it is reasonable to dispense with them.
- Under Section 20ZA(1) of the 1985 Act 'where an application is made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works..., the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements'.