Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Applicant, Adriatic Land 3 Limited, sought dispensation from statutory consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for fire safety works at Waterside Apartments. The works included installing a fire detection system and remedial vent modifications. The consultation process was flawed (incorrect cost information, missing stage 3 notices), but the Tribunal ruled it reasonable to dispense with these requirements as Respondents could not demonstrate relevant financial prejudice. The works were completed, and the final cost was £86,433.37. The decision was made on 26 February 2021.
Issues
The Tribunal considered whether it was reasonable to dispense with statutory consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 after the Applicant failed to properly consult leaseholders about fire safety works. The key issue was whether the defective consultation process resulted in any relevant financial prejudice to the Respondents, given the works were necessary for health and safety and had already been completed.
Holdings
The Tribunal determined that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Respondents failed to demonstrate any relevant financial prejudice arising from the defective consultation process, as the works were necessary for fire safety and no consequential costs were linked to the consultation failures. The decision is limited to dispensation of consultation requirements and does not address service charge reasonableness or other costs.
Remedies
The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements for the fire safety works as outlined in section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal applied the principle that the burden of proof lies with the party seeking dispensation (the Applicant) to demonstrate that the failure to comply with consultation requirements did not cause relevant prejudice to the Respondents. The Respondents were required to establish that any failure in consultation resulted in actual or potential financial prejudice, which they failed to do despite the defective consultation process.
Precedent Name
Daejan Investments Limited v Benson and others
Cited Statute
- Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003
- Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Judge Name
- Judge WL Brown
- Mr I R Harris MBE FRICS
Passage Text
- 26. ... the Tribunal considered carefully whether these points amount to financial prejudice, which it found it may do, but it could not be found to arise from the defective consultation. The initiation of the works to which the consultation requirement applied is not connected to the length of time for which the waking watch subsequently was engaged.
- 24. ... the Tribunal found that the Respondents have not identified prejudice arising from the costs of the works due to defective consultation. We record that Counsel for the Applicant confirmed at the hearing that the final invoices for the works amounted to £86,433.37, exactly as per the total of the quotes received, reflecting no increase in cost due to alleged delays in completing the works.
- 27. ... the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of this case, it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements of the works.