LON/ooBJ/LSC/2018/0286 London Borough of Wandsworth v Leaseholders of 100 High-Rise Residential Blocks

in the First-Tier Tribunal (Residential Property Chamber)

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to support applications to stay or postpone the hearing of Wandsworth Council's application to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) regarding introducing sprinklers into council owned high rise blocks in the London Borough of Wandsworth.

My reasons are as follows:

The Council's Director of Housing and Regeneration agreed not to commence work to install sprinklers until such time as the Grenfell Inquiry reported and made findings. Representatives for the Council now try to argue that this is not a decision of the Council. I argue that the Council as a legal entity cannot be, reasonably, separated from the decisions of its senior officers, in this way.

If the Council is going to make such a delay there is no reason why the hearing for the application cannot also be delayed.

Additionally I argue, the Grenfell Inquiry makes no material difference o the contractual substance of the case. However it may affect issues between the parties regarding the reasonableness of the Council's application. Because of this, staying the full hearing of the case until after the Grenfell Inquiry has concluded would seem to be a sensible course of action. The Council now argues that considering the Inquiry should be part of a statutory process of consultation. Leaseholders have widely reported (and I concur) that the applicant's consultation is a sham, and is treated as a fait accompli. Leaseholders have no faith in Section 20 consultation carried out by Wandsworth Council. A significant part of this case will be the reasonableness of the Council's application and the Grenfell Inquiry report is a potentially important part of that.

If the Tribunal agrees with this it may also agree that the urgency of the respondent's filing a Statement of Case falls away. So I apply to the Tribunal to allow a considerable postponement of six months to filing this statement.

Were a stay to be granted Wandsworth Council could apply for it to be lifted if any material circumstances changed. I can see no prejudice to Wandsworth Council's application if a stay is granted and the deadline for filing the respondent's Statement of Case is postponed.

I also argue that a postponement should be made because the respondents have been considerably prejudiced in responding to the Council's application. There are ongoing difficulties with organising a response, gaining legal representation and communications between leaseholders. Wandsworth Council have sought to frustrate the processes by which leaseholders could communicate and organise a response to their application. As an example, the Council's legal representatives have ignored communications, failed to copy material communications to the Tribunal to leaseholders, or delayed the communications that they have made. I have recently asked to have sample leases disclosed, and was ignored. How can I make a response to the Council's application without such material documents? Some leaseholders have had difficulty accessing the 'data rooms' that the Council agreed to set up. A handful of leaseholders are legally represented but hundreds more who want to be, cannot afford to be and need more time to access the cheaper options that may be available. Most of the leaseholders 'representatives' through residents or leaseholders associations are not legally qualified, and can't be expected to do the job of solicitor or barrister. This is also true of many councilors.

Both the Council and leaseholders have a reasonable duty to support the Tribunal in its fundamental aims as stipulated by Tribunal rules. The Tribunal has to ensure, so far as is practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings. These applications are essential to that overriding objective.

Yours sincerely,

Respondent Leaseholder