RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL SERVICE

INTERIM DECISION

GIVEN BY THE LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 20ZA

REF: LON/00AC/LDC/2010/0105

Premises: 1 -16 Crown Terrace NW2

Applicant: Daejan Properties Limited represented by

Hammond Bale, Solicitors

Respondent: Leaseholders of 1 – 16 Crown Terrace NW2

Tribunal: Dr Helen Carr

Mr Neil Martindale FRICS

Decision: The Tribunal determines to exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements contained in Part 2 of Schedule 4 to

the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) England) Regulations

2003.

The Application

1. The landlord of the premises applied on 12^th October 2010 under

section 20AZ for dispensation from the consultation requirements

contained in Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the Service Charges (Consultation

Requirements) England) Regulations 2003.

Procedure

2. The Tribunal held a pre-trial review of this matter on 25^th October 2010 2010 and issued directions on the same date. In those directions it was noted that the landlord had indicated that it was content for the matter to be determined on the basis of written representations and without an oral hearing in accordance with the procedure set out in regulation 13 of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (Procedure) England) Regulations 2003.
3. The Directions gave an opportunity for any party to request an oral hearing. They also gave an opportunity for any leaseholder who wishes to oppose the application from the landlord to provide a statement to the Tribunal setting out his or her reasons for so doing. No request for an oral hearing has been received by the Tribunal and nor has any statement of objection to the landlord’s application for dispensation from consultation been received.

4. This matter is therefore being determined on the basis of the papers alone.

Determination

The Evidence

5. The documents provided to the Tribunal indicate as follows:

a. Crown Terrace (the building) is a Victorian Terrace comprising a block of ground floor shops with flats above.

b. The parapet wall of the building which is supported by steel beams is above a public highway and footpath. It was found by Mr Dawson of JMP Group Consulting Engineers to be structurally unsafe following an inspection on 20^th July 2010. In a witness statement date 29^th November 2010 Mr Dawson states that what was required was the urgent removal of the corroded steel beams in order to remove the risk of damage and injury. This work, including the replacement of the steel beams, was carried out in August 2010.

6. It is on this basis that the freeholder has made the application for dispensation.

The Law

7. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under s.20ZA of the Act. The wording of s.20ZA is significant. Subs. (1) provides:

8. “Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements” (emphasis added).

9. In light of the evidence provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, and in the absence of any objections from the leaseholders, the clear urgency of the matter and the increased costs which would be caused by delay, the Tribunal determines to exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements contained in Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

10. The parties should note that this determination does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or indeed payable. The Respondents are able, if it appears to them to be appropriate, to make an application under s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as to reasonableness and payability.

Signed:

Dated: 20^th December 2010