First-tier Tribunal Allows Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : MAN/00CG/LDC/2025/0670

Property

:

[ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], Sheffield, s10 2bg

Applicant: [redacted]

[COMPANY] : [COMPANY]

Respondents

:

[redacted] the Property

Type of [NAME] : [NAME] for the dispensation of consultation requirements pursuant to S.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Members :

Tribunal Judge [NAME] Tribunal Member [NAME]

:

Paper determination

Date of Determination

:

12 February 2026 DECISION © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 Decision of the Tribunal

The Tribunal grants the [NAME] for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) (Section 20ZA of the 1985 Act). The reasons for this decision are set out below. The background to the [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of 1985 Act from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act. Those requirements (“the Consultation Requirements”) are set out in the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”).

2. The [NAME] is dated 23 September 2025.

3. The Tribunal did not inspect the Property but we understand the Property consists of a a five-storey mixed-use building with a commercial unit on the ground floor and 36 long-leased residential apartments on the upper floors. The freehold is vested in the Applicant and the Respondents comprise the [NAME] of the 36 apartments.

4. The only issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the Consultation Requirements.

5. A directions order dated 17 November 2025 (“the Directions Order”) set out that the Applicant should send to each Respondent a complete copy of the Applicant’s case including the [NAME] form and a copy of the Directions Order. Any Respondent who opposed the [NAME] were ordered to send to the Applicant and to the Tribunal a statement in response which included any documents relied on. The Applicant was given the opportunity to provide final statements in reply with 7 days of expiry of the date by which the Respondents.

6. The Applicant provided a bundle of documents, which included amongst other items a copy of the Tribunal [NAME] form, a statement of case explaining why the [NAME] has been made to the Tribunal, a Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls and Attachments report (“FRAEW”) carried out by [COMPANY] (“CHPK”) dated 21 May 2024 and correspondence to the [NAME] in relation to [NAME].

7. The [NAME] relates to the following proposed works to the Property as set out in the statement of case dated 23 September 2025 (“the Statement of Case”): (a) External Wall Type 2: Timber - Removal and replace timber constructions with a suitable alternative that achieves Euroclass A2-s1, d0 or better (non-

combustible class) and install cavity barriers at the relevant locations in conjunction with current Building Regulations in Approved Document B. (b) External Wall Type 3: Remove and replace combustible spandrel panels with materials that achieve A2-s1, d0 or better and install cavity barriers at compartment lines and around openings in line with Approved Document B. (c) External Wall Type 4: Remove and replace the combustible Grille Spandrel Panel with materials that achieve A2-s1, d0 or better and install cavity barriers at compartment lines and around openings in line with Approved Document B. (d) External Wall Type 5: Remove and replace the combustible Balcony Door Grille Spandrel Panel with materials that achieve A2-s1, d0 or better and install cavity barriers at compartment lines and around openings in line with Approved Document B.

Collectively (“[NAME]”)

8. Approved Document B, referred to above, is a government approved guidance document under the Building Regulations 2010, detailing mandatory fire safety standards for building design, construction and use.

9. [NAME] have not yet been undertaken. The Applicant states [NAME] are required to be completed as soon as practicable considering the extent of the combustible materials within the external walls of the Property, providing a high risk to life as set out in the FRAEW.

10. The Applicant has appointed project managers in respect of [NAME] being [COMPANY] (“TFT”) who have initiated a tender process to select a suitable contractor for [NAME] who will be engaged on a design and build basis. The Applicant submits that the design and build contract procurement route does not satisfy the Consultation Requirements as TFT have already been appointed as project managers, CDM advisors and cost consultations to provide specialist advice for [NAME] and therefore they form part of [NAME] project. In addition, the Applicant states that due to the tender exercise it would be unable to comply with stage 2 of the Consultation Requirements in that it would be unable to obtain quotes from any contractors nominated by the [NAME].

11. The Applicant states it did on 15 November 2024 enter into a pre-construction services agreement with contractor [APPELLANT] (“[NAME]”) on the advice of TFT.

12. The Applicant sets out in the Statement of Case the Property qualified for assessment under the Cladding Safety Scheme (“CSS”).

13. The CSS is a government funded programme managed by [COMPANY] launched in July 2023. It provides funding to meet the cost of addressing life safety fire risks associated with cladding on residential building over 11 metres in height in England.

14. The Applicant states in the Statement of Case that an [NAME] was made to the CSS for funding and that it received confirmation of pre-tender support funding on 20 February 2025 followed by [COMPANY] confirming on 10 March 2025 the Property is eligible for full CSS funding with the applicant signing a grant funding agreement dated 6 March 2025.

15. The Applicant states the [NAME] have been kept up to date in relation to [NAME] and various correspondence has been sent between October 2020 and September 2025.

16. The Applicant has advised that the Respondents have been provided with the documents required by the Directions Order on 9 December 2025. Two responses have been received. One from Mr [NAME] leaseholder of apartment 2 of the Property, and one from Mr [NAME] and Ms [NAME], [NAME] of apartment 34 of the Property.

17. Mr [APPELLANT] confirmed that he did not oppose the Applicant’s. [NAME] for dispensation.

18. Mr [APPELLANT] and Ms [APPELLANT] confirmed that they did oppose the Applicant’s [NAME]. Various reasons were set out which included a failure by the applicant to set out certain information, the updates provided falling short of the Consultation Requirements, although the urgency for [NAME] is understood that is not a reason to avoid due process and absence of leaseholder input on the two-stage tendering process.

19. The Applicant provided a Statement of Case in Reply dated 7 January 2026 (“the Reply”) in which it concludes that the objection raised by Mr [NAME] and Ms [NAME] do not establish any relevant prejudice arising from the absence of following the Consultation Requirements and that the focus of the Tribunal when considering these types of applications must be on the relevant prejudice if any as per [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 and [COMPANY] v [NAME] of [ADDRESS] [2023] UKUT 174 (LC)

20. The Directions Order set out that the matter would be dealt with by way of a determination on the papers received unless any of the parties made

representations within 42 days of the date of those directions. No representations have been made.

21. The Tribunal did not inspect the Property and it considered the documentation and information before it as set out above.

Grounds for the [NAME]

22. The Applicant set out in its [NAME] that [NAME] are required to be completed as soon as practicable considering the extent of the combustible materials within the external walls of the Property, providing a high risk to life as set out in the FRAEW. The Applicant submitted that due to how the tender process for [NAME] was being carried out this means not all the stages in the Consultation Requirements could be carried out.

23. The Applicant has not yet carried out [NAME].

The Issues 24. This decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of [NAME]. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs for [NAME] are payable or reasonable. If a [NAME] wishes to challenge the payability or reasonableness of the costs for [NAME] as service charges, including the possible [NAME] or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022, then a separate [NAME] under section 27A of the 1985 Act would have to be made.

Law 25. Section 18 of the 1985 Act defines what is meant by “service charge”. It also defines the expression “relevant costs” as:

the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf

of the landlord, or a superior landlord, in connection with the matters

for which the service charge is payable.

26. Section 19 of the 1985 Act limits the amount of any relevant costs which may be included in a service charge to costs which are reasonably incurred, and section 20(1) provides:

Where this section applies to any qualifying works … the relevant

contributions of tenants are [COMPANY] … unless the consultation

requirements have been either–

(a) complied with in relation to [NAME] … or (b) dispensed with in relation to [NAME] … by the

appropriate tribunal.

27. “Qualifying works” for this purpose are works on a building or any other premises (section 20ZA(2) of the Act), and section 20 applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out [NAME] exceed an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00 (section 20(3) of the 1985 Act and regulation 6 of the Regulations).

28. Should a landlord not comply with the correct consultation procedure, it is possible to obtain dispensation from compliance with these requirements by an [NAME] such as this one before the Tribunal. Essentially the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.

29. The Applicant seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act from all the Consultation Requirements imposed on the landlord by section 20 of the 1985 Act.

30. Section 20ZA (1) of the 1985 Act relates to Consultation Requirements and provides as follows:

Where an [NAME] is made to a leasehold valuation 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.

31. Reference should be made to the Regulations themselves for full details of the applicable Consultation Requirements. In outline, however, they require a landlord (or management company) to:

• give written notice of its intention to carry out qualifying works, inviting [NAME] to make observations and to nominate contractors from whom an estimate for carrying out [NAME] should be sought;

• obtain estimates for carrying out [NAME], and supply [NAME] with a statement setting out, as regards at least two of those estimates, the amount specified as the estimated cost of the proposed works, together with a summary of any initial observations made by [NAME];

• make all the estimates available for inspection; invite [NAME] to make observations about them; and then to have regard to those observations;

• give written notice to the [NAME] within 21 days of entering into a contract for [NAME] explaining why the contract was awarded to the preferred bidder if that is not the person who submitted the lowest estimate.

32. In the case of [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, by a majority decision (3-2), the Supreme Court considered the dispensation provisions and set out guidelines as to how they should be applied.

33. The Supreme Court came to the following conclusions: (a) The correct legal test on an [NAME] to the Tribunal for dispensation

is: “Would the flat owners suffer any relevant prejudice, and if so, what

relevant prejudice, as a result of the landlord’s failure to comply with

the requirements?” (b) The purpose of the consultation procedure is to ensure [NAME] are

protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than

would be appropriate. (c) Considering applications for dispensation the Tribunal should focus on

whether the [NAME] were prejudiced in either respect by the

landlord’s failure to comply. (d) The Tribunal has the power to grant dispensation on appropriate terms

and can impose conditions. (e) The factual burden of identifying some relevant prejudice is on the

[NAME]. Once they have shown a credible case for prejudice, the

Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it. (f) The onus is on the [NAME] to establish: (i) what steps they would have taken had the breach not happened

and (ii) in what way their rights under (b) above have been prejudiced as

a consequence.

34. Accordingly, the exercise of the Tribunal’s power to dispense is governed by a determination of whether “it is reasonable” to dispense. Lord [NAME] explained in [NAME] at [67]: “while the legal burden of proof would be, and would remain throughout, on the landlord, the factual burden of identifying some relevant prejudice that they would or might have suffered would be on the tenants”.

35. [NAME] gives a direction of travel for the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion and a clear steer that where the Tribunal is unable to identify relevant prejudice, dispensation should be granted. The Tribunal has to consider whether any prejudice has arisen out of the conduct of the Applicant and whether it is reasonable for the Tribunal to grant dispensation following the guidance set out above in [NAME].

Consideration and Findings 36. The Consultation Requirements are intended to ensure a degree of transparency and accountability when a landlord (or a management company) decides to undertake qualifying works – the requirements ensure that [NAME] have the opportunity to know about, and to comment on, decisions about major works before those decisions are taken.

37. [NAME] have not yet been completed. The Tribunal must therefore decide whether it is reasonable for [NAME] to go ahead without the Applicant first complying with the Consultation Requirements. As set out above those requirements are intended to ensure a degree of transparency and accountability when a landlord decides to undertake qualifying works – the requirements ensure that [NAME] have the opportunity to know about, and to comment on, decisions about major works before those decisions are taken. They also ensure that [NAME] are protected from paying for inappropriate work, or from paying more than would be appropriate for necessary work. It is reasonable that the Consultation Requirements should be complied with unless there are good reasons for dispensing with all or any of them on the facts of a particular case.

38. It follows that, for it to be appropriate to dispense with the Consultation Requirements, there needs to be a good reason why [NAME] cannot be delayed until the requirements have been complied with. In the present case [NAME] required are to ensure the fire safety of the Property; there is currently combustible materials within the external walls of the Property which provides a high risk to life as set out in the FRAEW. The Respondents have been made aware of the need for [NAME] for some time whilst the Applicant was carrying out investigative reports and applying for funding available. It can be seen from the correspondence within the papers submitted by the Applicant to the Tribunal that the Respondents have been kept up to date with progress and plans for [NAME]. The Applicant has engaged with [COMPANY] and CSS in relation to [NAME]. The Applicant sets out why, due to the nature of [NAME] and the tender process for [NAME], the Consultation Requirements cannot be strictly adhered to.

39. Only one objection to the [NAME] has been received, this being from Mr [NAME] and Ms [NAME]. That objection does not in the Tribunal’s view set out or demonstrate any prejudice which would be suffered as a consequence of the Applicant not complying with the Consultation Requirements. It is noted that Mr [NAME] and Ms [NAME] state in their objection email 18 December 2025 “this is clearly an urgent safety issue, so if the freeholder will undertake not to

recover any costs from the [NAME] and also undertake to minimise disruption to occupants then we will withdraw our objection.”

40. The Tribunal accepts [NAME] need to be carried out as soon as possible and that due to the nature of [NAME] and tendering process being used this would result in non-compliance with the Consultation Requirements.

41. The Tribunal finds that, taking into account that there has been no prejudice identified, the [NAME] in this case will not suffer any prejudice as a consequence of the failure to comply with the Consultation Requirements for [NAME] and further that there is good reason for dispensing with the Consultation Requirements in this particular case.

42. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds it is reasonable to allow dispensation in relation to [NAME].

43. Nevertheless, the fact that the Tribunal has granted dispensation from the Consultation Requirements for [NAME] should not be taken as an indication that any service charge costs resulting from [NAME] are reasonable; or, indeed, that such charges will be payable by the Respondents.

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 [NAME] for permission to appeal must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

3. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must be arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

4. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such applications 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

5. The [NAME] 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 rounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.

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