VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation Due to Safety Concerns

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements because of safety concerns related to cracked tiles on the front path of a building.

⚖️ Legal holding

It is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements where there is a clear risk of personal injury.

Topics

tenancyservice chargesstatutory consultation

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant permission to skip consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so, based on the circumstances presented.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements due to safety concerns.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 due to a clear risk of personal injury from cracked tiles on the front path.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2017

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2023/0235 Property : 21-30 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] application Representative :

Type of application : For the dispensation of some of the consultation requirements under s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision :

28 November 2023

DECISION

2

Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal determines that those parts of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ("the Act") which have not been complied with are to be dispensed with. The application 1. The Applicants seek a determination pursuant to s.20ZA of the Act for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Act. The application was dated 14 September 2023.

2. Directions of the Tribunal were issued on 12 October 2023.

3. The case was listed for a paper determination. No request had been made by any of the parties for an oral hearing. The hearing 4. The matter was determined by way of a paper hearing which took place on 28 November 2023. The background 5. The premises consist of ten flats on five floors in a section of a larger purpose built block of flats in [ADDRESS], Maida Vale. The application 6. The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of retiling the front path to the premises as the existing tiles had cracked giving rise to a real risk of tripping and consequent personal injury to the owners and visitors to the flats.

7. There were the tenders and the cheapest in the in the sum of £3,851.43 plus VAT from [COMPANY] was accepted.

8. Their specification is as follows: • Remove all existing tiles. • Prepare sub- base for new tiles. • New tiles are exact match for existing tiles ([NAME]) – supplier sourced in UK. • To avoid restricted access we propose to complete half of the pathway in the first phase of the job – allowing constant access and egress from the property for the duration of the work. • Once phase 1 is complete and the tiles are set, this side of will be opened and the other half of the pathway will be closed off to complete phase 2. • Complete phase 2. • Clean down and seal all pathway tiling. • All accumulated waste to be disposed. •

3 9. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application did not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

10. No notice was received from any of the Respondents opposing the application. Decision of the tribunal 11. s.20 of the Act provides for the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutory consultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250 can be recovered from a tenant in respect of such works unless the consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed with.

12. Dispensation is dealt with by s.20ZA of the Act which provides:- "Where an application 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"

13. The Tribunal is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of this case, involving a clear risk of personal injury, it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of the installation of the new tiles for the front path.

13. The Tribunal's determination is limited to this application for dispensation of consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Act.

Name:

[NAME]: 28 November 2023

📊 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

  • There is a clear risk of personal injury.
  • Works are urgent and necessary.
  • There is no substantial prejudice to the respondents.
  • Leaseholders are aware and have not objected.
  • Compliance with consultation requirements would cause undue hardship.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements due to safety concerns.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of a multi-unit building were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the cracked tiles posed a clear risk of personal injury.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the cracked tiles posed a clear risk of personal injury was crucial.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to bypass consultation requirements if there is a clear safety concern.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing the condition of the tiles and the risk they posed was important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases 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.