Fire Safety Costs and Consultation Requirements Determined by First-tier Tribunal

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00DA/LSC/2022/0051 MAN/00DA/LDC/2022/0003

Property : [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted]

: [COUNSEL] (Counsel) [NAME]

Respondents

Representative

:

: [NAME] Solicitors (for [COMPANY] only), otherwise unrepresented

Type of Application : Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – Section 27A and Section 20ZA

Tribunal Judge : Judge L. F. McLean

Date of Decision / Determination : 20th November 2025 on the papers without a hearing in accordance with rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

2 Decisions of the Tribunal

(1) The Tribunal grants unconditional dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (together, “the Consultation Requirements”) in relation to (A) the costs associated with the provision of a [NAME] at the Property during 2021; and (B) any excess or residual costs associated with the installation of the fire alarm system at the Property as were not defrayed with assistance from the [NAME] – as described in the Applicant’s application form and supporting evidence.

(2) Pursuant to Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Tribunal determines that the service charges payable by the Respondents in respect of their respective leasehold interests in the Property for the service charge year 2021- 2022 were as set out in the attached Schedule.

(3) Pursuant to Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Tribunal determines that the service charges payable by [NAME] and [COMPANY] in respect of their respective leasehold interests in the Property for the element of their service charges concerning legal costs incurred by the Applicant, in respect of the years described below, were:-

2021/2022: £17,725.00 ÷ 181 = £97.93 2022/2023: £16,800.00 ÷ 181 = £92.83 2023/2024: £2100.00 ÷ 181 = £11.60 Total:

= £202.36 (per Respondent)

The applications

1. Under application reference MAN/00DA/LDC/2022/0003, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for unconditional dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (together, “the Consultation Requirements”) in relation to qualifying works and any applicable qualifying long term agreement. The application was dated 13th December 2021.

2. Under application reference MAN/00DA/LSC/2022/0051, the Applicant originally sought a determination that certain service charges demanded (or to be demanded) from the Respondents under their respective lease agreements were payable. The service charges in question related to the 2021/2022 service charge year. The application was dated 12th April 2022.

3

Procedural history

3. Both applications concern measures taken by the Applicant to deal with fire safety risks at the Property during 2021. The Applicant arranged for a “[NAME]” service to be provided, and also commissioned works for the installation of a new fire alarm system.

4. On 8th September 2022, Judge Holbrook gave initial directions for the joint case management of the aforementioned proceedings. He noted the potential application of the (then) newly-enacted Building Safety Act 2022 upon the situation. Both cases were subsequently intermittently stayed until 1st October 2024. The next case management hearing took place on 14th January 2025. During the course of that hearing, it became apparent that the Applicant had secured funding from a variety of sources to meet the majority of the costs incurred in providing the [NAME] and installing the new fire alarm system. Some costs still fell due to be met by [NAME] who did not benefit from the protections set out in the Building Safety Act 2022, and the remainder of those costs were said to have been met by a series of voluntary contributions from all [NAME]. However, [COMPANY] were still maintaining objections to some of the costs (albeit not the application for dispensation from consultation requirements). They were given an opportunity to particularise their points of dispute in advance of a further case management hearing.

5. At the reconvened video case management hearing on 21st May 2025, it was possible to identify that the only remaining disputed service charge costs contested by [NAME] and [RESPONDENT] amounted to £202.36 per Respondent over a three year period between 2021 and 2024. They were given a final opportunity to set out their case based on written submissions. Directions were also given to allow all other respondents the final chance to raise any objections regarding the two applications.

6. None of the other Respondents raised any objections or made any submissions.

7. [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] made written submissions in which they conceded the remaining points of dispute in favour of the Applicant.

8. The Tribunal considered that it was appropriate to determine both applications on the papers and without a hearing, before a Tribunal Judge sitting alone.

Dispensation from Consultation Requirements

9. The Applicant’s application form and supporting evidence stated that the Applicant had been required to carry out urgent works to install a new fire alarm system following a fire risk investigation conducted by Leeds City Council in early 2021. It also identified that it had been necessary to operate a “[NAME]” as a temporary measure until the works were

4 carried out. These steps were necessary on an urgent basis to mitigate the health and safety risks. The costs of the works and the [NAME], as remitted through the Respondents’ leasehold service charge demands (to the extent that they were payable), were due to exceed the statutory limits per leaseholder imposed by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003, meaning that the Applicant had been required to comply with the Consultation Requirements set out therein unless the Tribunal granted dispensation in relation to the same.

10. The only issue the Tribunal needed to consider was whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the Consultation Requirements. That aspect of the application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs resulting from any such works are reasonable or indeed payable (these being separate considerations under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985).

11. The application is not opposed by any of the Respondents.

12. The relevant sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 read as follows:-

20 Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) except in the case of works to which section 20D applies, dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate tribunal.

(2) In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement.

(3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount.

(5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and

5 (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.

(6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount.

(7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.

20ZA Consultation requirements: supplementary (1) Where an application is made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.

(2) In section 20 and this section—

“qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b) in any circumstances so prescribed.

(4) In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord— (a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants’ association representing them, (b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c) to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and

6 (e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements.

(5A) And in the case of works to which section 20D applies, regulations under subsection (4) may also include provision requiring the landlord— (a) to give details of the steps taken or to be taken under section 20D(2), (b) to give reasons about prescribed matters, and any other prescribed information, relating to the taking of such steps, and (c) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to the taking of such steps.

(6) Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b) may make different provision for different purposes.

(7) Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

13. The decision in the binding legal authority of [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 confirms that the Tribunal, in considering dispensation requests, should focus on whether [NAME] are prejudiced by the failure to comply with consultation requirements.

14. The Applicant relied on a witness statement of [APPELLANT] dated 8th December 2021, which set out the history of the fire safety investigations and referred to various exhibits.

15. The Tribunal is satisfied by the Applicant’s evidence and submissions that had it complied with the Consultation Requirements in full, there would have been an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the residents of the Property.

16. The Tribunal also takes into account that no Respondent has challenged the Applicant’s assertions in any regard. The main purpose of the Consultation Requirements is to reduce the risk of works being carried out needlessly or at greater cost than is reasonable ([COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14). However, the Respondents are required to at least raise an outline basis of how they would be (or have been) prejudiced by non- compliance, and to set out what they would have done differently if the Consultation Requirements had been fully complied with (Aster Communities v Chapman [2021] 4 WLR 74; Wynne v Yates [2021] UKUT 278 (LC)), which they have not done in this instance as no objections were received.

17. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that it is reasonable to grant dispensation from the Consultation Requirements.

7 Determination under Section 27A (Payability by all Respondents, 2021-2022 only)

18. In support of the Applicant’s position in this aspect of the proceedings, it relied upon a witness statement of [NAME] dated 6th November 2024. This provided an overview of events since his previous statement of 8th December 2021. He noted that some of the Respondents had since gained an exemption from paying certain costs of the [NAME] and fire alarm provisions under the leaseholder protection provisions of the Building Safety Act 2022. He summarised how various costs had been met from a variety of sources – including [COMPANY] funding, a voluntary contribution from [APPELLANT], voluntary donations from the directors of the Applicant, and service charge demands payable by [NAME] who were not exempt under the Building Safety Act. He stated that this left a shortfall of approximately £20,101.90 remaining in connection with the [NAME], which was met by requesting voluntary payments from all [NAME] in varying proportions. Mr [NAME] summed up the position that:-

As a result, during the service charge year 2021/2022 the [NAME] have not been asked to pay any costs related to the [NAME] or, for that matter, any building safety-related costs. The [NAME] with non-qualifying leases were asked to contribute to the cost of providing the [NAME] via their service charge, but this demand was not made until the year 2023/2024.

19. The Tribunal notes that sums which are paid voluntarily are therefore not a “service charge” within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

20. The Tribunal also notes that no [NAME] have maintained any objection to the application under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to the 2021-2022 service charge year. There is currently no application in relation to the 2023-2024 service charge year before the Tribunal which requires determination.

21. Mr [NAME] went on to make the following proposal in his statement:-

The Tribunal should determine that each leaseholder is liable to pay the service charge for the year 2021/2022 set out in Schedule BC6. The sums set out in Schedule BC6 do not include any costs for the [NAME] or other building safety costs. None of the [NAME] has responded to the Payability Application disputing their liability to pay these costs.

22. The Tribunal concurs that this is a sensible and pragmatic means to conclude this application. In the absence of any challenge to the Applicant’s position, the Tribunal finds in the Applicant’s favour.

Determination under Section 27A (Payability by [COMPANY], legal expenditure only)

8

23. As has been noted already, the only remaining dispute maintained by [NAME] [NAME] and [APPELLANT] related to legal costs incurred by the Applicant during the service charge years 2021/2022, 2022/2023 and 2023/2024. The estimated contributions per Respondent in each case were:-

2021/2022: £17,725.00 ÷ 181 = £97.93

2022/2023: £16,800.00 ÷ 181 = £92.83

2023/2024: £2100.00 ÷ 181 = £11.60

Total:

= £202.36 (per Respondent)

24. As this element of the dispute has now also been conceded by [NAME] [NAME] and [APPELLANT], the Tribunal likewise finds in favour of the Applicant in relation to these costs.

Name: Tribunal Judge L. F. McLean

Date: 20th November 2025

Rights of appeal

1. By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

2. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

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

4. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

5. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

6. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

9

10

11

12

13