VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Boiler Replacement Dispensation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a freehold company to replace two commercial boilers without consulting the tenants because the works were deemed urgent and no objections were raised.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant may be dispensed from consultation if there are no objections and no prejudice is identified.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent worksboiler replacement

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. It specifies that 'qualifying works' refer to works on a building or premises, and 'qualifying long term agreement' refers to an agreement lasting over twelve months. The consultation requirements include providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenants to suggest estimators, considering tenant observations, and giving reasons for certain actions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for urgent boiler replacement works.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for the replacement of two commercial boilers at a mansion block in London, finding the works urgent and identifying no objections or prejudice from the lessees.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2024/0156 Property : [ADDRESS], London [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : C/O Principia Estate and Asset Management Respondent : [redacted] attached to the [NAME] : N/A Type of [NAME] : S.20ZA – [NAME] for dispensation from consultation Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 30 July 2024

DECISION

2 The tribunal’s decision (1) The tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought by the

applicant, in respect of the replacement of the two commercial boilers at

[ADDRESS], London [POSTCODE] and associated works. _____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. This is an [NAME] pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and

Tenant Act 1985 seeking dispensation from consultation in respect of

the replacement of two commercial boilers required for heating/hot

water at the subject property. 2. The property is a mansion block comprising of 5 flats on five floors

(including basement, ground and three upper floors). The property is

served by two commercial boilers providing heating and hot water. The

applicant asserted one boiler had broken down completely and the other

suffered from frequent breakdowns. 3. A Notice of Intention dated 5 June 2024 was served on the respondents

and one quote was obtained by the applicant from [APPELLANT] in the sum of £83,908.20 (including VAT). The applicant

asserted it intended to obtain a second quotation. The hearing 4. Neither party requested an oral determination and therefore, this

[NAME] was determined on the documents using the 113 page digital

bundle provided by the applicant. 5. In the documents provided to the tribunal, copies of correspondence

from a [NAME] was included, which confirmed the frequent and highly

inconvenient breaking down of the one working boiler. 6. The tribunal did not receive any objections to this [NAME] from the

[NAME]. The applicant also confirmed it had not received any objections

to this [NAME] from the [NAME]. The tribunal’s reasons 7. The tribunal is satisfied the [NAME] had been notified of this

[NAME] as directed by the tribunal in its directions dated 26 June

2024.

3 8. The tribunal finds the required works are urgent, due to the loss of

provision of heating and hot water to the [NAME]. The tribunal is

satisfied the [NAME] have been notified of the applicant’s intention to

carry out these works and that under the terms of the lease it is

required to do so. 9. In the absence of any objection from the [NAME] and the

identification of any prejudice caused were dispensation from

consultation to be granted, the tribunal finds it is reasonable to grant the

dispensation sought; [COMPANY] v Benson and others

[2013] UKSC 14 & [2013] UKSC 54.

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 30 July 2024

Rights of appeal

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. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at [NAME] within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] 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. 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 grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

4

📊 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 tribunal granted dispensation for replacing two commercial boilers and associated works.
  • The works were urgent because heating and hot water were lost.
  • The leaseholders were notified of the application and the intention to carry out the works.
  • No leaseholders objected to the dispensation request.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for the replacement of two commercial boilers at a mansion block in London.

Who was involved?

The application was made by the freehold company of a mansion block and the lessees of the flats in the building.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that dispensation from consultation was appropriate because the works were urgent and no objections were raised by the lessees.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the works were urgent and there were no objections from the lessees.

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 also be granted dispensation from consultation if the works are urgent and there are no objections from the lessees.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Correspondence from a lessee confirming the frequent breakdowns of the boiler was important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

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

It is always recommended to seek 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.