Major Works and Consultation "Section 20" A Warning

[leaseholdanswers]

I still say that if a lift breaks down, and not forseeable, and
less than £ 250 each, it can't be major works. No answer
required on that, as it will all become clear as I read future
posts and legal websites, and I / we have to conform to the
law, and not our own definitions.

R.a.m.

Then you will still not have understood. Major works no longer exists as a definition or clarification.

Para 37 explains how it should work. For example an estimated contribution in advance still stands, but risks being capped if consultation is not carried out.

[siva]

We cannot survive if we have to wait 10 to 12 weeks for
the LVT, as we have to get the money in to pay insurance etc etc, 4 weeks after year end, but can't if we have to
"S20" the next years budget, and wait.

You shouldn't include insurance in the £250 restriction. It only relates to qualifying works. The 2002 act defines qualifying works as “works on a building or any other premises”

Also, you don't technically have to wait for the LVT decision for dispensation. You can even apply retrospectively. Even after the LVT have limited a leaseholders costs to £250.

And you could make your application 12 weeks before the accounting period starts if the LVT take that long to decide on whether to give dispensation. Or go through the consultation process before the accounting period starts.

I think the LVT can give dispensation as long as a leaseholder is not significantly prejudiced by doing so.

[leaseholdanswers]

Well we are waiting for a determination that not consulting is in of itself prejudice. Certainly in the last two years that has become pretty much the position " they are prejudiced- show that they weren't"

[siva]

Well we are waiting for a determination that not consulting is in of itself prejudice. Certainly in the last two years that has become pretty much the position " they are prejudiced- show that they weren't"

I daresay some will think that way. Perhaps it will become pretty much that no dispensation is ever allowed but I'm not sure that was the intention in the Court of Appeal decision which changed how people looked at dispensation.

My understanding was based on that Court of Appeal decision (within the last couple of years) which I know you have discussed on here before. I seem to remember the word "significant" or a similar word being used in the decision which struck me as meaning that the leaseholder had to be prejudiced by a certain financial amount before dispensation should be refused.

No clue was given as to what that amount was but dispensation must be allowed up to some level of prejudice otherwise the 'dispensation' statute is redundant which I doubt would have been the intention of the Appeals Court which I seem to remember took into consideration all the relevant law.

Of course my memory could be playing tricks on me.

[leaseholdanswers]

No thats not the point.

In simple terms it's one of emphasis and starting point, appreciating that one is guilty unless you can prove otherwise, not an elimination of dispensation, or a presumption that a tenant has to prove prejudice.

[aguila]

Setting aside the LVT dispensation route, regrettably and bizarrely my interpretation of various legal analyses I have now had is that leaseholdanswers is correct - everything is now in the pot which used to be called "major works". Asinine though this is, surely the most absurd consequence is the issue of how on earth one is supposed to comply with the s.20 requirement of getting quotes etc?? Using my "lift breakdown" example above, I can just imagine phoning two lift maintenance suppliers with the request to quote for a series of breakdowns which I don't know will happen or not, and if they do what will have caused them?..."yes, guv, no problem, your cost will be somewhere between nothing and £20,000"...

In the meantime I will send out the forecast budget for the year to come to leaseholders and hope that this gives me a defence of consultation if I am ever up in front of the LVT!

A

[ram]

s.20 ..."yes, guv, no problem, your cost will be somewhere
between nothing and £20,000"...

My thoughts exactly, but then we could both be wrong.

I will continue to use the current published rules and regulatons stated
in my files until such time as the S20 regulations change.
Please someone let me know if the actual rules have changed, and
where i can get the latest copy S20 rules that incorporate the
courts ruling.
I hope the governmant websites now incorporate the court revisions,
but i will not waste my time today looking for the ammended rules,
as I fear they wont be published yet.

If that is the case, I am safe using current rules as saved in my files.

If new rules are published, and ammended by act of parliament,
or whoever sanctions these new rules, please point me in that
direction, so I may administer the rules as published.
( Not court appeals, but hard written amendments to the S20
rules. As one would look for to check the latest issue )

R.a.M.

[leaseholdanswers]

RAM you are being very dense today. The whole profession and landlords are scratching their heads at this preposterous decision but it is the law of then land.

The 2003 regulations remain unchanged, it is their interpretation as to what qualifying works,and how they are totalled are that has been upturned by this silly man. It has been made clear as I went to the trouble to post,that we wont know as the former and current regime were never defined in legislation or regulations,but case law.

The published guidance is therefore caveated as I went to the trouble to post and the publishers LEASE have also said they can't be used ( see post 1) so you are a fool to yourself if you do.


No one knows right now its all down to waiting for rulings or an appeal, or hopefully a change in the law.

[siva]

No thats not the point.

In simple terms it's one of emphasis and starting point, appreciating that one is guilty unless you can prove otherwise, not an elimination of dispensation, or a presumption that a tenant has to prove prejudice.

I think you're referring to burden of proof and that you can't prove a negative. I'm not convinced that in general terms the applicant (LL) needs to prove that the leaseholder is not prejudiced by the granting of dispensation.

The LVT can dispense with requirements to consult if they are satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. The burden is to convince them that it is reasonable. The leaseholder would site the CA case and the LL would argue that it's only relevant in cases of significant prejudice.

[leaseholdanswers]

I think you're referring to burden of proof and that you can't prove a negative. I'm not convinced that in general terms the applicant (LL) needs to prove that the leaseholder is not prejudiced by the granting of dispensation.

The LVT can dispense with requirements to consult if they are satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. The burden is to convince them that it is reasonable. The leaseholder would site the CA case and the LL would argue that it's only relevant in cases of significant prejudice.

I am not going to waste my time debating this. Thats the legal position, full stop.