VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Fire Safety Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for fire safety works under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, recognising the urgency and necessity of the works.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispense with consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if it is reasonable to do so.

Topics

consultation requirementsfire safetyexternal wall systems

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 First-tier Tribunal can grant permission to skip the usual consultation process if it finds it reasonable to do so, specifically for urgent fire safety works. The consultation requirements refer to providing tenants with details of proposed works, obtaining estimates, inviting tenant suggestions for additional estimates, considering tenant feedback, and giving reasons for certain actions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing the landlord to proceed with urgent fire safety works without complying with the usual consultation process.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/OODA/LDC/2021/0069

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY]

Respondents : [redacted] (see Annex A)

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

Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge [NAME] Tribunal Member [NAME] of Determination : 16th June 2022

Date of Decision : 4th July 2022

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

Decision

1. The application to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) regarding the works specified by the Applicant to ensure the safety of the residents at Whitehall Waterfront, [ADDRESS], Leeds is granted.

Reasons

Background

2. This is an application made by [NAME] (GR3) [APPELLANT] (“the Applicant”) for the dispensation of the consultation requirements imposed by Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) regarding works required to remedy the existing external wall system at Whitehall Waterfront. [ADDRESS], Leeds (“[NAME]”).

3. The Applicant has stated the external wall system comprises combustible materials and poses a fire risk.

4. The Respondents to the application are the various long leaseholders of the residential apartments forming part of [NAME] (“the Respondents”).

5. The application is dated 20th October 2021 and in respect of which directions were issued on 21st February 2022 providing for the filing of any objection by the Respondents and for the application to be determined without a hearing.

6. There have been no objections received in respect of the application.

The Law

7. Section 20 of the Act provides:

(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) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) a 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.

8. In the event the requirements of section 20 have not been complied with, or there is insufficient time for the consultation process to be implemented then an application can be made to the First-tier Tribunal pursuant to section 20ZA of the Act.

9. Section 20ZA of the Act provides:

(1) Where an application is made to a tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any 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

Submissions

1. The Applicant is the landlord of [NAME], a L-shaped building ranging from 10 to 16 storeys. The ground floor contains commercial units whilst the upper floors are principally residential units.

2. The Applicant has been made aware that remedial works are required to [NAME] regarding the construction of the external wall system that is constructed of combustible materials and poses a fire risk.

3. The Applicant has appointed [NAME] to report further upon the work required to remedy the defects and they have recommended works to include the removal of the balconies and for them to be refurbished before re- installation, remove the existing cladding and then apply render, remove terracotta tiles and reinstate after remedial work and remove and replace both silver and dark [NAME] aluminium panels. The cost of the work will require compliance with the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Act.

4. The Applicant has registered [NAME] with the [NAME] due to the nature of the remedial work and has claimed for the full cost of the work, but this may not be granted. The requirements of the fund are such that once funding is granted, it is expected any work will be carried out quickly.

5. The Applicant has chosen to proceed with the work under a Design and Build procurement route which is where the appointed contractor both designs and constructs the work.

6. The Applicant has instructed [APPELLANT] to carry out the remedial work via a Design and Build contract and they have estimated the cost to be £7,412,950.82, excluding VAT.

7. The Applicant seeks dispensation from all consultation requirements since it is said it would not be practicable to comply with them given the method of funding, the procurement method for dealing with the works and the urgency of it.

8. The Applicant has commenced the consultation process by sending a Stage 1 Notice of Intention, dated 15th October 2020, to the Respondents and have also provided regular updates.

9. The Applicant submits the Respondents will not suffer any financial prejudice by the granting of dispensation. If dispensation is not granted and consultation is req then any government funding could be lost resulting in higher costs for the Respondents. Determination 10. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under section 20ZA of the Act. Section 20ZA (1) provides the Tribunal may do so where “if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”.

11. The Tribunal, having considered the submissions made by the Applicant, is satisfied the works are necessary and are urgent. It accepts that due to the steps taken to carry out the work, it is not practicable to carry out the consultation requirements contained within section 20 of the Act and dispensation is therefore granted under section 20ZA.

12. The granting of dispensation does not affect the Respondents’ rights to the challenge the reasonableness or the payability of the service charges under a separate application pursuant to section 27A of the Act. [NAME] Tribunal Judge 4th July 2022

Annex A

[NAME] [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] G [COMPANY] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] R [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] C Brown & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] T [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] A [NAME] & [NAME] D [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] R [NAME], D [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] P [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] R [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr T [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] A [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss J [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME], H [NAME] & V [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] D [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] T [COMPANY] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] DA, LS, DM & AS [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME]) [COMPANY] [NAME]

[NAME] & [NAME] [NAME]-Trustees of [COMPANY] [NAME], [NAME], & [COMPANY]

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 external wall system of the property contains combustible materials, creating a fire risk that requires urgent remedial work.
  • The landlord has already started the consultation process by sending a Stage 1 Notice of Intention and providing regular updates to residents.
  • No objections were received from the residents regarding the application to dispense with consultation requirements.
  • The Tribunal found that the necessary works are urgent, making it impractical to carry out the full consultation requirements.
  • Dispensation would prevent the potential loss of government funding, which could lead to higher costs for the residents.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant dispensation from consultation requirements for fire safety works.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the long leaseholders of the residential apartments.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were deemed necessary and urgent, and compliance with the consultation requirements was impracticable.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the works were urgent and necessary, and compliance with the consultation requirements was impracticable.

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

For the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also seek dispensation from consultation requirements if their works are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Specialist reports recommending the works and the urgency of the situation.

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?

Yes, it is always advisable to seek legal 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.