First-tier Tribunal Allows Management Company to Bypass Consultation for Urgent Electrical Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a management company to skip the usual consultation process for urgent electrical repairs at a property in Sheffield, ensuring tenants' safety and reducing inconvenience.
⚖️ Legal holding
A management company may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant a management company permission to bypass consultation requirements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so, based on the urgency and necessity of the works.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal allowed the dispensation from consultation requirements due to urgent electrical works.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted a management company dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent electrical works at a property in Sheffield.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Reference : MAN/00CG/LDC/2019/0031
Property : Little Kelham, Sheffield, [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted] Applicant representative
:
[COUNSEL] ([NAME]) Respondents : [redacted] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Ms [NAME] [NAME] & Ms [APPELLANT] Ms [APPELLANT] of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA
Tribunal Members : Deputy Regional Judge Bennett Regional Judge Duffy
Date of Decision : 02 August 2019
_______________________________________________
DECISION ____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2
Application
1. [APPELLANT] applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) for dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) in respect of works to the power supply and cables at the property.
2. The Respondents are the individual Residential Leaseholders of apartments at the Property.
Grounds and Submissions
3. The application was received by the Tribunal on 11 July 2019.
4. The Applicant is the Management Company a party to the lease of the apartments at the Property.
5. On 16 July 2019 the Tribunal made directions relating to service of the application and arrangements for a response. It was directed that in the absence of a request for an oral hearing the application would be determined upon the parties’ written submissions without a hearing.
6. The Property is stated to be a a purpose built block comprising 6, 2 bedroom apartments.
7. The Applicant stated in the application form that the work relates a “supply and installation of 95mm 4 core SWA cable 135 meters in length”. Further details are given of the works involved.
8. Further information states that because of urgency consultation has not taken place although [NAME] are aware of the urgency.
9. The Applicant states that the work is urgent as currently all 6 apartments are without electricity save for the hire a generator at a weekly cost in excess of £1400 and inconvenience of noise and pollution.
10. In accordance with directions the Applicant has provided copy standard Lease, contemporaneous emails, quotation by contractor and a case statement.
11. Responses have been received from Mr [NAME] and Ms [NAME] of [NAME] and [NAME] of [NAME]. Both consent to the application but raise queries whether it should be chargeable to leaseholders.
12. Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.
13. The Tribunal convened without the parties to determine the application on 02 August 2019.
3 Law
14. Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.
15. Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.
16. Section 20 of the Act states:- “Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements
Where this Section applies to any qualifying works…… the relevant contributions of tenants are limited……. Unless the consultation requirements have either:- a. complied with in relation to the works or b. dispensed with in relation to the works by ……. the First Tier Tribunal This Section applies to qualifying works, if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount”.
17. “The appropriate amount” is defined by regulation 6 of The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) as “……. an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00.”
18. Section 20ZA(1) of the Act states:- "Where an application is made to a Tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works ……..….. the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements."
Tribunal’s Conclusions with Reasons
19. We considered the written evidence accompanying the application.
Our conclusions are:-
20. It is not necessary for us to consider the extent of the service charge payable by the Respondents that has resulted from the work. If disputed when demanded an application may be made to the Tribunal under Section 27 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
21. We note that both respondent’s submissions question leaseholders liability for costs of the works, however this is not relevant at this stage as set out above. Further whether they have some other avenue of claim in respect of defective construction is not a matter to be taken into account in this determination.
22. We find from the evidence provided on behalf of both parties that circumstances have arisen in which it is necessary to restore the electricity supply as soon as possible as the alternative temporary generation arrangements involve significant expense and inconvenience.
23. It is clear that the circumstances have the potential to severely impact on the health, safety, utility and comfort of occupiers and visitors to the flats and common parts at the Property.
4 24. Although formal consultation has not taken place, we are satisfied it is impracticable as it would incur unacceptable delay. The Leaseholders have been informed of the position and we have not identified a specific prejudice to Leaseholders in the circumstances. Comments made are properly the matter for consideration when a service charge is demanded and may be the subject of a determination under Section 27A of the Act.
25. We conclude it reasonable in accordance with Section 20ZA(1) of the Act to dispense with the consultation requirements, specified in Section 20 and contained in Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) whether prospective or retrospective.
26. Nothing in this determination or order shall preclude consideration of whether the Applicant may recover by way of service charge from the Respondents any or all of the cost of the work undertaken or the costs of this application should a reference be received under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Order
27. The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the work specified in the application.
Judge L J Bennett 02 August 2019
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Exemption for Urgent Fire Safety Measures
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Essential Boiler Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Right to Manage Company Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Tree …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal allows bypass of consultation for urgent lift repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Permission for Urgent Repairs Without C…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Under S.20ZA
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Emergency Call System Upgrade Without Leaseholde…
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 works are considered urgent and necessary.
- The works are deemed urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.
- The works are seen as urgent and necessary for safety reasons.
- The works are viewed as urgent and necessary for health and safety reasons.
- No objections are raised regarding the urgency and necessity of the works.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal allowed the management company to bypass the consultation requirements for urgent electrical repairs.
Who was involved?
The management company and residential leaseholders of apartments at the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the management company could proceed without consultation due to the urgent need to restore electricity.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA, and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The management company argued that the works were urgent and necessary to restore electricity to all apartments.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the management company.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can apply to the Tribunal for dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included contemporaneous emails, a contractor's quotation, and a case statement.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
