The Court of Appeal has ruled that a property court is allowed to impose conditions on landlords when granting them dispensation from their usual requirements to consult.
The ruling is the result of a dispute between a group of tenants in an apartment block in Andover and the building’s owner over balcony asphalt. The owner had carried out a programme of works including re-asphalting the balconies. The owner claimed the balcony work was necessary, the tenants that it was not. The balcony work, according to the ruling, cost at least £300,000.
Having completed the works, the owner applied to property court the First Tier Tribunal to be granted dispensation from the normal consultation requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act as they said they could prove the work was needed. The FTT agreed but imposed conditions.
Specifically, the court ruled that the landlord had to pay for an expert report on the balcony asphalt, and had to pay the tenants’ legal costs. Finally, the court said the landlord was not permitted to pass those costs back to the tenants via a service charge.
The landlord appealed and, in a ruling today, the Court of Appeal upheld the earlier ruling, saying that the FTT could impose conditions.
“This decision will provide comfort to tenants when considering whether to challenge or make representations in respect of applications for dispensation,” said Oliver Park, an associate at Charles Russell Speechlys.
“Tenants may be given a chance to obtain expert evidence at the landlord’s cost by the court to assist in challenging the works in question, have their costs of the application paid by the landlord, and the landlord may also be prohibited from recovering their costs of the application through the service charge.
“Landlords should also consider whether further expert evidence is required to establish the necessity or scope of works before an application for dispensation is made,” he said.
Aster Communities v Kerry Chapman and others
Court of Appeal (King LJ, Newey LJ, Phillips LJ), 7 May 2021
Ranjit Bhose QC (instructed by Capsticks Solicitors LLP) for the appellant
Philip Rainey QC and Robyn Cunningham (instructed by Talbot Walker LLP) for 33 of the respondents
