First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Gas Detection System Replacement
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for a person regarding the replacement of gas detection systems in two residential buildings. This was because no a person objected to the a person and there was no evidence of harm to them.
⚖️ Legal holding
An applicant may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if there is no prejudice to a person and no objections are raised.
📖 What the law says
Under this section, an appropriate tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to works done on a building or other premises, and qualifying long-term agreements are those entered into by or on behalf of the landlord for over twelve months. The consultation requirements involve providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenants to suggest additional 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 requirements for urgent gas detection system replacement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for the replacement of gas detection systems in two residential buildings. The decision was made due to the lack of objections from leaseholders and the absence of any prejudice to them.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2025/0649 Property : 1-22 [NAME] and 1-17 [NAME] Applicant: [redacted] London Borough of Lambeth
Respondents : [redacted] the appendix to this decision
Type of [NAME] :
Dispensation from consultation requirements under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 20ZA Tribunal Member :
Judge Professor R Percival
Venue : Remote paper determination Date of Decision : 27 May 2025
DECISION
2
Decisions of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal, pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), grants dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the works which are the subject of the [NAME]. Procedural 1. The landlord submitted an [NAME] for retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) and the regulations thereunder, dated 10 February 2025. The [NAME] is specifically to dispense with the requirements of Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) 2003 Regulations, schedule 3, as the works are to be, or were, carried out by a contractor under a long-term qualifying agreement (regulation 7).
2. The right to consultation under section 20 applies to long [NAME]. The Applicant states that the two blocks that are the subject of this [NAME] are “mixed tenure”, but also that there are 18 “[NAME]” (in 18 flats). [NAME] for all 18 flats are listed in the bundle by the Applicant. I assume therefore that all 18 of the flats are held on long leases and the [NAME] are all therefore Respondents to the [NAME].
3. The Tribunal gave directions on 13 March 2025. The directions provided for a form to be distributed to those who pay the service charge to allow them to object to or agree with the [NAME], and, if objecting, to provide such further material as they sought to rely on. The [NAME] and directions were required to be sent to the [NAME] and any sublessees, and to be displayed as a notice in the common parts of the property. The deadline for return of the forms, to the Applicant and the Tribunal, was 14 April 2025.
4. The Applicant confirmed that the relevant documentation had been sent to the [NAME] and displayed as required.
5. No response from any of the [NAME] has been received by the Tribunal. The property and the works 6. The properties are two purpose-built, low-rise blocks. There are 11 flats in [NAME] and seven flats in [NAME].
3 7. The works are to replace failed and obsolete gas detection systems. The cost of the works is given as £8,069.24 for [NAME] and £7,507.23 for [NAME].
8. On 22 January 2025, the Applicant wrote to the [NAME] explaining that this [NAME] would be made, and including a useful FAQ. Determination 9. The relevant statutory provisions are sections 20 and 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1983, and the Service Charges (Consultation etc)(England) Regulations 2003. They may be consulted at the following URLs respectively: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 1985/70 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1987/contents/made 10. The Tribunal is concerned solely with an [NAME] under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with the consultation requirements under section 20 and the regulations.
11. The Applicant’s primary submission is that there is no prejudice to the [NAME], and so the Tribunal should allow dispensation without conditions, as required by [COMPANY] v Benson and others [2013] UKSC 14, [2013] 1 WLR 854.
12. No response has been received from any of the [NAME] objecting to the [NAME] by the Tribunal (or, I assume, by the Applicant – at any rate, the Applicant has not indicated that it has received any, albeit there was no obligation to do so imposed by the directions). It is therefore clear that none of the [NAME] have sought to claim any prejudice as a result of the consultation requirements not having been satisfied. In that situation, I agree with the Applicant’s submission. [APPELLANT] requires the Tribunal to allow the [NAME], without more.
13. I note that the submission also refers to the urgency of the work, an argument that I would have accepted, given the health and safety implications of no functioning gas detection system, had it been necessary to do so.
14. This [NAME] relates solely to the granting of dispensation. If the [NAME] consider the cost of the works to be excessive or the quality of the workmanship poor, or if costs sought to be recovered through the service charge are otherwise not reasonably incurred, then it is open to them to apply to the Tribunal for a determination of those issues under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
4 Rights of appeal 15. 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 the London regional office.
16. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].
17. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, the [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 these reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.
18. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, 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.
Name: Judge Prof Richard Percival Date: 27 May 2025
5 APPENDIX: THE LEASEHOLDER RESPONDENTS
22 [NAME] Ms [NAME] 20 [NAME] Ms [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] and Mr [NAME] [NAME] 17 [NAME] Ms [NAME] 16 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 15 [NAME] [NAME] and Ms [NAME] 14 [NAME] Mr [NAME] 12 [NAME] Mr [NAME] 11 [NAME] Mrs [NAME] 7 [NAME] Mr [NAME].[NAME]. [NAME] 2 [NAME] Ms [NAME] [NAME] 1 [NAME] Mr [NAME] and Mrs [NAME] 9 [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] 16 [NAME] Mr [NAME] [NAME] 15 [NAME] Ms [NAME] [NAME] 14 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 5 [NAME] Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] 4 [NAME] Ms [NAME] 1 [NAME] Mrs [NAME]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Structural Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Due to Water Ingress and M…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Lift Replacement Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Upgrading Call System
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation from Consultation Requirem…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation from Consultation Requirem…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Balcony Repairs Due to Health a…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Water Pressure Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Granted Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Repairs
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 urgent.
- There is no prejudice to leaseholders.
- Leaseholders do not object.
- It is reasonable to grant dispensation.
- The works are necessary.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision granted dispensation from consultation requirements for the replacement of gas detection systems.
Who was involved?
The landlord and leaseholders of flats in two residential buildings were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because no leaseholders objected to the application and there was no evidence of harm to them.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1, and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that there was no prejudice to the leaseholders and no objections were raised.
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 seek dispensation if there is no prejudice to the leaseholders and no objections are raised.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The lack of objections from leaseholders and the absence of any prejudice to them were the key factors.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
