The Statutory Recoverability Review
Two conditions decide whether major works money is recoverable.
Miss one and recovery is capped at £250 per leaseholder. Miss the other and the charge is unenforceable entirely. Nobody audits either systematically. We test both, across a council's whole major works portfolio, in six weeks.
The problem
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 attaches two procedural tests to every recharge.
Both are absolute. Neither cares how necessary the works were, or how well they were built.
Section 20 · Consultation
Leaseholders must be consulted before the works begin, in prescribed stages, in the prescribed order, with the prescribed content.
Missed: recovery capped at £250 per leaseholder, however large the bill.
Section 20B · Time limit
Costs must be demanded within 18 months of being incurred. A slow final account decides this quietly, long after the scaffolding is down.
Missed: the charge is unenforceable. In full.
Councils learn the answer one block at a time, at tribunal, when a leaseholder challenges.
What that means in cash
A £2m re-roof can lawfully yield £25,000.
- Contract value £2.0m. The works are sound and the procurement is clean.
- Leaseholders' share £600,000. One hundred leaseholders at £6,000 each.
- One consultation stage served out of sequence. Nobody notices for years.
- Recovery capped at £250 a head. £25,000 collectable. The rest is gone.
£575,000forgone, permanently. Illustrative figures; the mechanism is real, and it is silent until a tribunal finds it first.
The review
One review answers it across the whole portfolio.
Four datasets the council already holds, lined up for the first time. No new systems, no integration project.
Reconciliation
For every package: were all consultation stages served, in order, before works started, and how many days ran between cost and demand.
The 18-month clock
Every live package tracked against its section 20B deadline. This is the part that prevents losses instead of counting them.
Apportionment
The percentage each leaseholder pays, checked against the percentage the lease specifies. Errors here run in both directions and compound quietly.
The software is simple. The asset is the ruleset: what counts as valid service, how the case law on delay applies, when a dispensation application is worth making.
The output
The output is a register, not a report.
Every works package lands in one of four columns, with the evidence behind its placement attached. Sample rows below, with illustrative figures.
| Package | Status | At risk | Days left | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MW-2024-017 Roof, Block C |
Deadline near | £214k | 41 | Costs incurred 507 days ago. No demand issued. |
| MW-2023-104 Windows, Phase 2 |
Lost | £389k | · | Demand issued 622 days after cost incurred. |
| MW-2022-088 Lifts, Tower A |
At risk | £176k | · | Estimates notice dated after works start. Dispensation possible. |
| MW-2024-006 Communal heating |
Recoverable | · | 312 | All stages served in sequence. Demand within period. |
| MW-2021-231 External redecorations |
Needs review | £61k | · | No notice records found. Archive gap, not a defect. |
The fifth status matters. Where the archive has a hole, the register says so rather than guessing, because every entry has to survive cross-examination.
The frame
Accuracy cuts both ways. It should.
The same test that finds undercharging finds overcharging. Where a leaseholder has paid more than their lease allows, the register says so, and the correction runs their way.
Every stock-retaining authority carries the best value duty, and every housing service answers to its leaseholders. Few workstreams serve both at once. This one is built to.
Method & assurance
Findings built to survive a tribunal, and a data protection officer.
Deterministic, documented
Every finding traces to a specific clause and specific dates, with the page image attached. Rules produce the findings, never generated text.
Reviewed by a practitioner
A former council leasehold manager validates each case before it enters the register, and judges which are worth pursuing.
No automated outcomes
No decision about any individual is produced by software alone. The tooling finds candidates. People make findings.
Minimal data by design
The review runs on package-level records: notices, dates, sums. Leaseholder-level data is pseudonymised and enters only where apportionment is checked.
No new sub-processor
Nothing extra for you to authorise. Any AI assistance sits in your tenant under your existing Microsoft terms, never in a service the council has not already assessed.
Ready for your DPO
Matching data across sources triggers a DPIA, so the processor annex arrives drafted. Cyber Essentials in place before any data moves, with the DPA and security schedule ready for Legal.
Fees
One fixed fee. No share of anyone's bill.
FROM
£24,500
Fixed fee, banded by leaseholder count · six weeks
Priced to sit inside most authorities' quotation limits, so it can usually be awarded directly on a purchase order. One payment, and no obligation of any kind beyond the six weeks.
- The registerEvery works package triaged, valued, evidenced.
- The exception listPackages needing action inside 90 days.
- Apportionment findingsOver and undercharges, by leaseholder.
- BriefingFor officers, and a summary members can read.
Recovery is referred out. Cases go to a panel landlord and tenant firm. We take no percentage of sums collected, so nothing in our fee moves with the size of anyone's service charge bill.
How it starts
Six weeks from data access to a defensible answer.
Weeks 1–2
Data audit
Two questions first: five years of dispensation history, and where the notice archive lives.
Weeks 3–4
Reconciliation
Packages triaged into the four columns as the evidence lands.
Weeks 5–6
The register
Evidence pack, briefing, and a clear decision on what happens next.
The clock is running whether or not anyone is watching it.
A thirty-minute scoping call establishes whether your portfolio is worth reviewing, and costs nothing. Bring one number if you have it: how many section 20 dispensation applications your authority has made in the last five years.
Or write directly: hello@assentor.co.uk