LVT/0047/10/13: Monmouth House, Cwmbran
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Applied Rules | Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Service Charges |
| Date | 11 July 2014 |
| Year | 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Section 27A |
| Court | Leasehold Valuation Tribunals |
| Judgement Number | LVT/0047/10/13 |
1
Y TRIBIWNLYS EIDDO PRESWYL
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL
LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL
Reference: LVT/0047/10/13
In the Matter of Flats at Monmouth House, Cwmbran, Gwent
In the matter of an Application under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
And in the matter of an Application under Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
TRIBUNAL David Evans LLB LLM
Roger Baynham FRICS
Kerry Watkins FRICS
APPLICANTS Keith William James & Shirley Mary James and others
RESPONDENT Bron Afon Community Housing Ltd
DECISION
BACKGROUND
1 Monmouth House is a substantial block of 56 flats located in the commercial centre of
Cwmbran. It is part of mixed complex of commercial and residential units constructed as part of the
“new town” of Cwmbran, the residential units intending to provide convenient accommodation for
the staff and managers of the shops and other business which were encouraged to locate
themselves in Cwmbran and provide employment for those whose jobs were jeopardised as a result
of the decline in the coal industry.
2 The ground floor and first floor of Monmouth House are taken up by the commercial units
whilst the flats are situated on the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors. Many of the flats are
what are generally called maisonettes and have accommodation on two floors whilst the smallest
units are in effect bedsits. We shall refer to the residential part of the building as “the Property”
and the combined residential and commercial parts as “the Building”.
3 The Property is constructed using reinforced concrete panels cladding a structural frame.
There is no insulation in the cavity between the external wall and the internal wall of the flats.
4 The freehold of the Building is now owned by the Prudential. The Property (i.e. the
residential floors) was originally let to the Cwmbran Development Corporation (CDC) by the then
freeholder, Cwmbran Town Centre Ltd. CDC let the flats on periodic tenancies and from 1986
onwards a number of tenants availed themselves of the Right to Buy scheme and purchased leases
of their flats at a premium. At the time of the hearing there were 20 flats in private ownership. The
leases of those flats are for 125 years from the 29th September 1985 at a ground rent of £10 pa.
Whilst the lessees are obliged to maintain the interior of their flats, the Respondent has the
responsibility for maintaining and repairing the structure and exterior of the Property. Under the
terms of the leases, the lessees covenanted to refund to the landlord a proportion of the cost of
such maintenance and repair
5 At some point, CDC transferred the Property to Torfaen Borough Council, later Torfaen
County Borough Council (we shall refer to both using the generic term “Torfaen”). During Torfaen’s
ownership of the Property, financial constraints dictated that repairs to the structure were carried
2
out on a sporadic basis, according to the evidence about every three years, and the Authority’s
collection of service charges from lessees was not well organised. No substantial works of repair,
renovation or improvement were carried out during this period. In 2007, Torfaen commissioned the
international firm of Surveyors, Savills, to prepare a Condition Survey, Risk Assessment and
Structural Survey of the Property and two other high rise buildings, Fairview Court and the Tower.
Savills in turn instructed Curtins Consulting Ltd (Curtins) to carry out a specialist structural survey
(the 2007 Report).
6 In 2008, Torfaen transferred its leasehold interest in the Property to the Respondent, an
organisation which had been specifically created for the purposes of managing Torfaen’s housing
stock and providing additional social housing. As a housing association, the Respondent had access
to funds and loans which it was able to utilise on works of repair, renovation and improvement. In
2009, it commissioned a second report from Curtins (the 2009 Report) which was intended “to
provide a robust appraisal of the high-rise stock with a view to establishing what structural, remedial
or improvement works will be needed to prolong its life”. In respect of Monmouth House, Curtins
set out two sets of costings for budget purposes: £470,400 for “general maintenance/remedial
works” to the elevations with other specified works to be carried out between years 1 and 5 with
similar work being undertaken between years 21 and 25; £735,000 for some remedial works,
applying insulated cladding to the exterior and other specified works to be carried out between
years 6 and 10. Following receipt of the 2009 Report, the Respondent concluded that it was more
economical to clad the exterior and embarked upon a programme involving the substantial works
which are the subject of this application.
7 In 2010, the Respondent invited tenders from contractors to carry out the following:
- Replace the windows in the Property
- Re-roof the Property
- Clad the exterior walls of the Property
There is no issue concerning the first two items. A number of tenders were received. The tender
from Seddon Construction Ltd (Seddon) was accepted in the sum of £759,193.31(exclusive of VAT)
which superseded an earlier tender of £516,613.33. The Seddon tender was not in fact the
cheapest, but the cheapest tender would have caused unacceptable disruption to the shops below
and was therefore not acceptable. There was no issue raised concerning this.
8 The Respondent started the statutory consultation process on the 10th February 2011. A
substantial number of objections to the Respondent’s proposals were received. However, the
Respondent subsequently commissioned a further report from Curtins (the 2011 Report) who in turn
commissioned an inspection by CAN Structures Ltd (CAN). CAN closely examined the external
elevations for visible defects, recording the type, size and location of the defects identified. It tested
the depth of carbonation and the concrete cover to the reinforcement, drilled concrete dust samples
and carried out a borescope investigation to the panel fixings. It submitted its report (the CAN
Report) to Curtins in October 2011 and Curtins reported to the Respondent the following month.
The 2011 Report revealed:
- 21 instances of cracking in concrete with a maximum width crack of 4mm
- 8 instances of missing or spalled concrete
- 24 instances of cracks in render with a maximum width of 3mm
- Numerous occurrences of hollow/missing render particularly to floor slab edges below
windows
- Sealant joints between slabs degraded and in poor condition
- Poor sealant joints between glazing panels of the large windows to the West elevation of
the tower section
- Concrete panels appeared to be in good condition
- Low to medium levels of chloride ions
- Carbonation depths minimal
- Concrete cover to the reinforcement satisfactory.
To continue reading
Request your trial