Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited v Leaseholders of Sovereign View
[2023] UKUT 174 (LC)
RM Residential Limited v Westacre Estates Limited & Anor
4 March 2024
[2024] UKUT 56 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord did urgent repairs to a building before getting official paperwork. A lower court said he couldn't get permission for skipping the usual tenant consultation because he wasn't yet the official owner. A higher court disagreed, saying that he was the owner in all but name, and that the tenants weren't harmed by the lack of consultation, so permission was granted.
Key Facts
- •R M Residential Limited appealed the First-tier Tribunal's (FTT) refusal to grant a dispensation from the statutory consultation requirement before major works at 2, The Waterloo, Cirencester.
- •The works, costing £123,150.52, were carried out between March and September 2021, addressing structural issues and asbestos removal.
- •The appellant purchased the freehold on December 22, 2020, but registration occurred on January 7, 2022.
- •The FTT refused dispensation, citing lack of ownership during the works and insufficient urgency.
- •The respondents (leaseholders) did not assert prejudice from the lack of consultation.
Legal Principles
Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 mandate tenant consultation before major works costing over £250 per leaseholder.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 20; Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003
Section 20ZA of the 1985 Act allows the FTT to dispense with consultation requirements if reasonable. The key consideration is whether tenants suffered prejudice from the lack of consultation.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 20ZA
In *Daejan Investments Limited v Benson*, the Supreme Court clarified that the FTT's discretion under section 20ZA focuses on tenant prejudice, not punishment for non-compliance. Urgency is not a prerequisite for dispensation.
Daejan Investments Limited v Benson [2013] UKSC 14
An equitable owner (during the registration gap between purchase and legal title registration) possesses sufficient standing to carry out works and apply for dispensation under section 20ZA.
Land Registration Act 2002, Section 24; Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, Section 3
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the appeal and granted the dispensation.
The UT found the FTT erred in law by requiring proof of urgency and by incorrectly assessing the appellant's standing during the registration gap. The absence of tenant prejudice justified the dispensation.
Similar Cases
Adriatic Land 5 Limited v The Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point
[2023] UKUT 271 (LC)
Avon Freeholds Limited v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd
[2024] UKUT 335 (LC)
S Franses Limited & Anor v Block 6 Ashley Gardens Roof Gardens Limited & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2880 (Ch)
Ambercrown Limited v Alexandra Perrett & Anor
[2024] UKUT 158 (LC)