sanity check on S20 consultation

G_M

I do not believe a S20 Consultation is required in the following scenario, despite a surveyor (hmmm ... legal expert?) saying it should be undertaken.

There is a private road, owned by a Company. Each resident in the road is a shareholder in the Company. Each resident makes an annual contribution to the company, which does some routine road sweeping, gardening etc, as well as building up a contingency fund.

The road needs some major repair work costing around £20K and quotes are being sought. The Company has sufficient funds in the contingency fund to cover this cost.

The Company's officers have met and concluded the work should proceed, and have informally advised the other shareholder/residents, none of whom have commented or objected.

However the surveyor advising the company officers has advised a formal S20 consultation should be undertaken.

My understanding is that S20 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applies where a landlord proposes to do certain works (defined in the Act) and pass the cost of those works on to his tenants, in accordance with the terms of their leases.

In this case there is no landlord, no tenant, and no leases.

Am I right that the Act therefore does not apply?

eddddy

I'd agree with your assessment.

If no leases are involved, I guess it's just contract law that needs to be considered.

e.g. When the residents paid their contributions, was it agreed that those contributions might be used for road repairs? I'm guessing it was.

(If, for example, residents were told that the money would be used to pay for leaf sweeping and gardening, it might be a breach of contract to use it for something else - like road repairs.)

moneyistooshorttomention

I'd assume that he wants it down in writing that the residents have agreed to pay out for this specific thing and on what terms and has just reached for the nearest available option as to how to get this "down in writing" that they've agreed.

Quite possibly the "nearest available option" isnt the correct option and I would hazard a guess that there is a more appropriate option and it's down to researching what that option is.

bouicca21

I think the point might be that a section 20 offers a certain safeguard that things are being done above board. Presumably the officers of the company are a subset of the residents so a method of proceeding that gives all the residents a chance to comment may be desirable.

davidmcn

I'd agree that Landlord & Tenant Act seems inappropriate. But what is the legal relationship, if any, between the road-owning company and the house owners? Is there anything in the titles about how maintenance costs are to be agreed?

da_rule

I would agree that section 20 wouldn’t be applicable, and it wouldn’t offer any protection as it has no legal power in the situation described.

I assume that the transfer deeds for the property have some sort of covenant to pay towards maintenance? Or is it something in the articles for the company that you have all signed up to?

G_M

Thanks for the confirmation, and for the additional thoughts..

The property owners/company relationship is not simple(esp regarding 4 properties excluded from company ownership through an apparent oversight!), but each Title includes a Charges reference to an original conveyance when the properties were built, including:

...all requirements with regard to the making up and maintenance of the roads footpaths; and road lilghting and the provision of foul and surface water drainage and all other services on the said land
Page 2 of 3
C: Charges Regiser continued
hereby transferred and to maintain the same in good order and
condition and to take all steps necessary to keep the roads clear
of obstruction

so I'm happy the Company has the right, indeed obligation, to do the work.