[2023] UKUT 174 (LC)

Sovereign View is an estate of 174 flats and houses grouped around five squares. The buildings are of brick with a concrete frame and pitched tile roofs, and are internally partitioned with block walls and plaster board. with solid, carpeted floors and stairs. The residential units are held on long leases which include standard provision for the lessees to pay a service charge.

In June 2020 a fire risk assessment commissioned by the appellant reported concerns about fire stopping, and recommended that a further survey be undertaken; the risk was identified as a level 4 risk meaning that action was recommended within three months.

In July 2021 a further fire risk assessment reported inadequate fire stopping in the risers and loft spaces. It recommended that either an immediate waking watch should be put in place as “a very short term measure” or simple battery linked smoke detectors should be installed in each flat. After that a fire alarm system should be installed across the estate. In response to that assessment the appellant put in place a waking watch at a cost of £10,000 per week, which has been paid for from the service charges reserve fund. It then obtained three tenders for the installation of a fire alarm system.

As is well known, section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to consult leaseholders before carrying out “qualifying works”, being work that would cost each leaseholder more than £250 by way of service charges. The consultation requirements did not apply to the waking watch because that is a service, not “works”. But the fire alarm installation was well within section 20 territory; the least expensive quotation for the alarm system was over £168,000. On 2 August 2021 the appellant began the consultation process by sending initial notices to the leaseholders. But the consultation proceeded no further; on 20 August 2021 the appellant accepted the cheapest quotation for the alarm system. In a zoom meeting with the residents it explained that it was going to apply to the FTT for a dispensation from the consultation requirements, which it did. It argued that a dispensation should have been granted because the work had to be done urgently in order to bring the expenditure on the waking watch to an end.

Once the new alarm system was installed the waking watch was discontinued, having been in place for three months.