Background
Some blocks on the estate were to undergo major works as part of stage 1 of 3 stages for the entire estate, which included roof repairs, external decoration and, most controversially, new windows. The cost was estimated to be £15,000-£25,000 per property depending on its size or apportionment calculation. A number of leaseholders grouped together to take Camden Council to court (First-tier Tribunal) and fight this unnecessary and unfair high cost.
2-day hearing
After denying up to the day of the hearing, the Council admitted during the hearing that it is liable for faulty ironmongery fitted to windows and will repair/replace rusting and tarnished materials. While this was a significant albeit small admission, it appears it was to try to eliminate any part of the final decision determined by the judge to go against the council.
Decision by First-tier Tribunal
It is important to note that all buildings do require maintenence and repairs. Sometimes replacement is the only option or at least seems a better long-term option when a cost-benefit analysis is performed. Therefore, the law is heavily weighted in favour of a landlord-freeholder to perform what it deems necessary for works on a building. Like in many other previous cases brought before the tribunal, only if the landlord can be shown to have acted extremely unreasonably in its decision to undertake work and/or calculate costs, the tribunal will likely find the work is justified and therefore reasonable. The judge decided the Bourne Estate stage 1 works were reasonable as the windows were very old and some may have been beyond economical repair.
We note that the council has re-tendered for stage 2 and 3 works and does not appear to be considering Wates again after a number of disputes it had with that contractor.
Stage 2 and 3 works could still be challenged at First-tier Tribunal, but it would need to be based on a different point of law i.e. not on whether or not it is reasonable to replace the windows instead of repair, which still has a cost implication an can make replacement better value for money long-term. Other angles that could be used include flaws in the consultation process, whether work is an improvement rather than a repair and exceptionally high and unreasonable costs from a flawed tendering process. As with all information on here, it does not constitute legal advice and you should speak with a solicitor before taking any action and for advice on your individual circumstances. BE Leaseholders adviser can provide information about how it conducted the action we took.