VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Council Granted Dispensation from Consultation Requirements for Energy Supply Agreement

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed Portsmouth City Council to bypass certain consultation requirements when entering into a long-term agreement for electricity supply. The decision was based on the council's need to secure competitive pricing and the likelihood of significant benefits for leaseholders.

⚖️ Legal holding

A public body can be dispensed from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the nature of the exercise means that the respondents are not prejudiced and are likely to receive a significant benefit.

Topics

consultation requirementsdispensationpublic body

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant permission to dispense with consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to construction or changes to buildings or other properties, while qualifying long-term agreements are contracts lasting over twelve months between landlords or their superiors and others. The consultation requirements involve providing tenants with details of proposed works or agreements, obtaining estimates, inviting tenant suggestions for additional estimates, considering tenant feedback, and giving reasons for certain actions.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to Portsmouth City Council from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to a public body from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing the body to enter into a qualifying long-term agreement for electricity supply without following the statutory consultation process. Judge D Dovar presided over the case.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case Reference : CHI/00MR/LDC/2024/0066

Property : Various Properties (see schedule)

Applicant : [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted]

Type of Application : s.20ZA

Tribunal Members : Judge D [NAME]

[NAME] and venue of : 1st October 2024, Havant Hearing

Date of Decision : 20th November 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 1. This an application by the city council for dispensation under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements in respect of their entering into a qualifying long term agreement for the provision of electricity to a large number of residential blocks in their City; in particular for the provision of heating and lighting to the communal areas.

2. The need for this application arises because the Applicant intends to enter into an agreement with an [NAME] which will be an agreement for the supply of electricity which will last longer than one year. Therefore the agreement is one which is governed by s.20 of the 1985 Act and requires either the statutory consultation process to be followed or dispensation obtained in default. If it does not do so then it will be restricted to recovering £100 per leaseholder per year for any costs incurred under the agreement.

3. The difficulty the Applicant faces is that in order to procure the most competitive price for electricity, it needs to engage with a [NAME]. As described to the Tribunal, this means that: a. A broker identifies a number of potential suppliers, in this case 17 and pre-vets them for suitability; b. An offer is then made from those potential suppliers with a fixed price for a period of time, in this case 18 months; c. Once the offer is made, the Applicant has one day to confirm and enter into a contract with one of the suppliers as due to the

3 fluctuations in energy prices, the price offered is only fixed for one day.

4. The value of the contract is around £2mn for all of the council’s properties.

5. In terms of consultation that has been carried out in this case, a letter explaining the process was sent out to the leaseholders on 8th April 2024, however, that had not complied with schedule 2 of the Regulations. The application itself was posted on the Applicant’s website and the letter of 8th April had a link to that resource. Those who requested a hard copy were provided with one and sent the response form required by the directions given by the Tribunal. The hearing bundle was also made available via the website.

6. Since the making of the application, the contract has in fact been placed, on 12th August 2024, with [NAME]. The Tribunal was told they are one of the biggest renewal energy companies in Europe. Of the tenders returned through the process outline above, they gave the cheapest offer.

7. There was one objection, from a Mr [APPELLANT]. The general tenor of his complaint was that the Applicant was a poor landlord and should face closer scrutiny, not less. He also thought this was a ruse by the Applicant to avoid scrutiny. He also doubted whether the process identified and the contract entered into was of financial benefit to the leaseholders. He was keen to have cheaper bills, but not at the expense of bypassing the required consultation.

4 8. The specific consultation requirements for works within s.20 are set out in the Service Charges (Consultation etc.) (England) Regulations 2003/1987. Schedule 1 sets out the requirements for qualifying long term agreements other than those for which public notice is required. Schedule 2 provides for such agreements where public notice is required. The Tribunal was informed by the Applicant that despite the value of the contract, and its position as a public body, the latter did not apply. On the basis of that, we have considered schedule 1 and have reviewed the requirements of that schedule against any prejudice that may have been suffered by the failure to adhere to parts.

9. Firstly, notice must be given of an intention to enter into an agreement. That should describe in general terms the agreement and reason for entering into it. It should also invite observations and nominations. The 8th April 2024 letter, the website and indeed this application met a number of those requirements, save for the invitation of nominations. In the circumstances, the reason for seeking dispensation in the first place is because the process seems to limit those from whom quotes would be obtained.

10. A further omission was the requirement to seek estimates from various parties. Again the process envisaged in this case, explains why it was not possible to do that. The next omission was the requirement to prepare and distribute proposals containing details of the costs under the agreement and to have regard to observations made. Again the process envisaged in this case, made that impossible as the cost would not be known until a day before acceptance was required. Had this been a

5 Schedule 2 agreement, it seemed that the Council may have had other obligations with regard to tendering, but many of the requirements it could not meet would have been disapplied.

11. Whilst there are obvious elements of the process that have been omitted, the Tribunal is satisfied that the nature of the exercise means that not only will the Respondents not be prejudiced, but they are likely to receive a significant benefit from the Council using its portfolio to access energy markets which would not be available to those with lesser property interests. Further that this process would obtain the best price obtainable. Therefore notwithstanding Mr [NAME] objection, the Tribunal did not consider there was any real prejudice. In terms of his concern over lack of oversight on the process, he has some comfort in that the Council has set out their approach which has led them to contract and that has been viewed by both the Respondents and the Tribunal.

12.

Accordingly, the Tribunal will grant dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the agreement entered into with [NAME], but on condition that the Council posts on its website the material terms of the contract, including the price obtained, as well as the prices offered by the other tenders.

6 Appeals

A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] .

The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28- day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The nature of the exercise does not prejudice the respondents.
  • The respondents are likely to receive a significant benefit.
  • There is no evidence of real prejudice to the tenants.
  • It is reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements.
  • The landlord acts in the best interest of the respondents.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant dispensation to the council from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Who was involved?

The case involved a public body (the council) and leaseholders of residential properties.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the nature of the exercise meant that the leaseholders were not prejudiced and were likely to receive significant benefits.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the council needed to engage in a dynamic purchasing system to secure competitive pricing, and that the leaseholders would likely receive significant benefits.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be able to obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if they can demonstrate that the nature of the exercise means that respondents are not prejudiced and are likely to receive significant benefits.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence included the need for a dynamic purchasing system, the competitive pricing obtained, and the likelihood of significant benefits for leaseholders.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days of receiving written reasons for the decision.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

Yes, it is recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.