Further Information Required?

In Reedbase Limited and another v Fattal and others [2018] EWCA Civ 840 the Court of Appeal was asked to decide if a statutory consultation should have been repeated when a landlord changed a specification of works to residential leasehold property.

The Court also considered whether the landlord had failed to make good damage caused by repairs to a roof terrace.

Statutory background

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 imposes restrictions on landlords of residential property who intend to carry out "qualifying works". At the first stage, the landlord must consult the tenants on the intention to carry out the works. A second consultation is required on the estimates obtained by the landlord.

Failure to consult may result in the landlord being able to recover only £250 for the works from each tenant.

Facts

The case involved an apartment block near Regent's Park, London.

Repairs were required to an asphalt roof under a terrace adjoining two penthouse flats. During the course of the works, the landlord decided to make some changes so that the new (and more expensive) tiles were fixed by a pedestal system, instead of being bonded on to the asphalt. This was necessary in order to avoid invalidating the guarantee relating to the roof sealant.

The additional cost of the new tiles and fixing system was approximately £31,000, representing 6% of the full costs of the works.

The tenants of the two penthouse flats (but no other tenants) complained that the estimates originally obtained by the landlord did not refer to the pedestal system and that the statutory consultation was therefore defective.

The two tenants also complained that the landlord had failed to satisfy its obligation to make good following the repairs to the roof.

The Court of Appeal's decision

The consultation issue

Giving judgment, Lady Justice Arden noted that there was no statutory judgment as to when the second stage consultation should be repeated. She held that the test was whether, in all the circumstances, the two complainant tenants had been given sufficient information by the first set of estimates. It was also necessary to consider the protection to be given to the tenants by the consultation procedure. Would it be materially assisted by obtaining fresh estimates?

In the circumstances of the case, fresh estimates would not assist because:

The tenants knew about the change in the works and approved it. This was not a case of the landlord trying to ambush the tenants The change in...