Question 1

Unsafe Gates

Accepted Answer

Unsafe Gates Q: We have three sets of swing vehicle gates with automatic opening. We have been advised by the gate maintenance company that the gates are not compliant with the new rules on gate safety (notably the need for safety edges) and need to be upgraded. The precise scope of the upgrade is not wholly clear but it will involve significant cost. As it seemed likely that the overall cost of upgrading the three gates would exceed the section 20 limit for qualifying works (in our case this works out at £6,500), we took the precaution of issuing notices of intention to carry out these works, based on a general description of the required work. These have not drawn any comment. Given the questions about the precise scope of the works, it has not yet been possible to obtain competitive quotes. In the meantime, however, the gate maintenance company has issued notices of unsafe operation and so we are faced with a potential quite long gap while the gates are left open (thus compromising security). Against that background, we have two questions relating to section 20: 1. Is it possible to short circuit the next stage of the process whereby we give lessees one month to comment on the outcome of the tender process, on the basis that the work needs to be carried out urgently? 2. Although we have treated the overall project to bring the gates up to scratch as one that triggers the section 20 procedure, are there grounds for treating the work on each gate as a separate item for section 20 purposes? In that context it may be worth mentioning that we are in any event considering decommissioning the automatic opening on one set of gates (leading to the basement car park). It is possible that this would bring the overall cost of the works down below the section 20 limit. FPRA Committee Member Gerry Fox replies: 1. The First Tier Tribunal has the power to dispense with the requirements of section 20. The dispensation is not given automatically and a case needs to be made. Having regard to the period of time since the first notice was served it is by no means certain that the Tribunal would grant a dispensation on the grounds of urgency. The application to the Tribunal does take some time, and it is possible that as you have already served the first notice you will not achieve a great deal of time saving by being granted dispensation. Once you have the necessary estimates you need to allow leaseholders 30 days to make observations after the second notice has been served. 2. You should not split the work into separate gates or by any other means merely to avoid the requirements of section 20. If you do not have the responsibility to carry out work to the third gate then this should be excluded from the quotations you seek. If as you indicate the cost of the works will then no longer go over the section 20 limit you are not obliged to continue with the section 20 requirements. As you have served the first notice it would be appropriate to write to all leaseholders advising them of the works you will be proposing, the cost and perhaps ask for their observations informally, but you may then seek a speedy response, not being bound by the 30 days of section 20. In view of your comments regarding the possible dangers associated with the gates, you should take the gates out of service until remedial work is carried out. I suggest that you write to all leaseholders advising them of your proposals and telling them to inform their insurers of the circumstances.' [Submitted April 2019]

Question 2

Unsafe Gates

Accepted Answer

Unsafe Gates Q: We have three sets of swing vehicle gates with automatic opening. We have been advised by the gate maintenance company that the gates are not compliant with the new rules on gate safety (notably the need for safety edges) and need to be upgraded. The precise scope of the upgrade is not wholly clear but it will involve significant cost. As it seemed likely that the overall cost of upgrading the three gates would exceed the section 20 limit for qualifying works (in our case this works out at £6,500), we took the precaution of issuing notices of intention to carry out these works, based on a general description of the required work. These have not drawn any comment. Given the questions about the precise scope of the works, it has not yet been possible to obtain competitive quotes. In the meantime, however, the gate maintenance company has issued notices of unsafe operation and so we are faced with a potential quite long gap while the gates are left open (thus compromising security). Against that background, we have two questions relating to section 20: 1. Is it possible to short circuit the next stage of the process whereby we give lessees one month to comment on the outcome of the tender process, on the basis that the work needs to be carried out urgently? 2. Although we have treated the overall project to bring the gates up to scratch as one that triggers the section 20 procedure, are there grounds for treating the work on each gate as a separate item for section 20 purposes? In that context it may be worth mentioning that we are in any event considering decommissioning the automatic opening on one set of gates (leading to the basement car park). It is possible that this would bring the overall cost of the works down below the section 20 limit. FPRA Committee Member Gerry Fox replies: 1. The First Tier Tribunal has the power to dispense with the requirements of section 20. The dispensation is not given automatically and a case needs to be made. Having regard to the period of time since the first notice was served it is by no means certain that the Tribunal would grant a dispensation on the grounds of urgency. The application to the Tribunal does take some time, and it is possible that as you have already served the first notice you will not achieve a great deal of time saving by being granted dispensation. Once you have the necessary estimates you need to allow leaseholders 30 days to make observations after the second notice has been served. 2. You should not split the work into separate gates or by any other means merely to avoid the requirements of section 20. If you do not have the responsibility to carry out work to the third gate then this should be excluded from the quotations you seek. If as you indicate the cost of the works will then no longer go over the section 20 limit you are not obliged to continue with the section 20 requirements. As you have served the first notice it would be appropriate to write to all leaseholders advising them of the works you will be proposing, the cost and perhaps ask for their observations informally, but you may then seek a speedy response, not being bound by the 30 days of section 20. In view of your comments regarding the possible dangers associated with the gates, you should take the gates out of service until remedial work is carried out. I suggest that you write to all leaseholders advising them of your proposals and telling them to inform their insurers of the circumstances.' [Submitted April 2019]

Unsafe Gates

Search

Articles Archive