First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Health and Safety Works
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to bypass leaseholder consultation for urgent health and safety works. The works included replacing unsafe cast iron gutters and downpipes.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be exempted from consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and necessary for health and safety reasons, as seen in this case involving unsafe cast iron gutters and downpipes.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements for major works if it is reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and outlines the types of consultation requirements that can be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal allowed the landlord's application to bypass consultation requirements due to urgent health and safety concerns, specifically regarding unsafe cast iron gutters and downpipes.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent health and safety works under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The works involved replacing unsafe cast iron gutters and downpipes.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/ 24UF/LDC/2019/0085
Property
:
[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant
:
[redacted]
:
[NAME_2]
Respondents
:
[redacted] attached to the Application
Representative
:
-
Type of Application
:
To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works
Tribunal Member(s)
:
Judge Tildesley OBE
Date and Venue of Hearing
:
On the papers
Date of Decision
:
28 November 2019
DECISION
2 The Application
1. The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act.
2. The Applicant explains that cast iron gutters and downpipes were unsafe and required replacement due to health and Safety concerns. One section had already fallen off.
3. This is the second application for identical works the first application being struck out due to a failure by the Applicant to comply with the Tribunal’s directions [CHI/24UF/LDC/2019/0064]. This Application for dispensation was received on 25 October 2019.
4. On 28 October 2019 the Tribunal directed the Applicant on receipt of the directions to send them together with a copy of the application to each Respondent. On 30 October 2019 the Applicant confirmed to the Tribunal that this had been done. The Applicant also explained that there were four commercial units and seven residential flats at the property.
5. The Applicant served the Tribunal with a hearing bundle of documents on 20 November 2019.
6. The Tribunal received a response from one leaseholder, [NAME_3] of Flat 7B who agreed with the Application. The Tribunal notes that [NAME_3] of Flat 8B responded to the previous application with which he was in agreement. . Determination
7. The Tribunal finds the following facts:
a) In July 2019 A section of the cast iron guttering fell from the rear of the building, narrowly missing the external seating area of the hairdressing unit.
b) The Applicant obtained two quotations to replace the gutters and downpipes, £4,520 and £8,414.
c) The Applicant was obliged to carry out the works urgently because of the risk to the health and safety of residents.
d) The Applicant informed the leaseholders that it had applied for dispensation because it did not have time to carry out the statutory consultation. The Applicant also convened a meeting of the leaseholders on 21 August 2019 to explain the situation. Only one leaseholder was able to attend the meeting.
3 e) The Applicant instructed the contractor who had supplied the lowest tender and the works were completed on 11 September 2019.
8. The Tribunal is satisfied from the facts found that the Applicant did not have time to complete the statutory consultation because of the urgent nature of the works which were necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents. The Applicant took steps to mitigate its inability to consult by obtaining two quotations, holding a meeting of leaseholders and instructing the contractor who gave the lowest tender.
9. The Tribunal decides to dispense with the requirements to consult on the works to the gutters and downpipes because it is satisfied that the leaseholders would suffer no relevant prejudice.
10. The Tribunal’s decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying works. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of those works are reasonable or payable. If a leaseholder wishes to challenge the reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.
11. The Tribunal will send a copy of the decision to the leaseholders who responded. The Tribunal asks the Applicant to inform the other leaseholders of this decision by way of noticeboard or other forms of communication.
4
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.
3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.
4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Health and Safety Repairs in Plymou…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £1,947 Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs in Portsmouth
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Asbestos Removal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation for Assured Tenancy in Manchester
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Entitled to Recover Costs for Major Works Under Lease Terms
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal grants dispensation for urgent repairs to timber deck in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £1,000 Fire Safety Work Dispensation in New Malden Block of…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Ventilation System Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Permits £3,904 Communal Boiler Works Without Leaseholder Consultat…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fire Alarm Installation Dispensation Granted Due to Safety Concerns
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £990/Month Rent for Assured Tenancy in West Sussex
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 presence of urgent health and safety concerns allows a landlord to bypass consulting leaseholders.
- Works are considered necessary to address significant health and safety risks.
- Leaseholders have not objected to the works being done urgently for health and safety reasons.
- The landlord can be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary for safety.
- Major works are allowed without consultation if they fall under urgent fire safety improvements.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No specific losing factors listed among the provided similar 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 landlord's application to bypass the consultation requirements with tenants due to urgent health and safety concerns.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over whether the landlord could bypass the statutory consultation process due to unsafe cast iron gutters and downpipes posing health and safety risks.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to allow the bypass because the works were urgent and necessary to protect the health and safety of residents.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20ZA and 20 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the works were urgent and necessary to protect the health and safety of residents.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing the landlord to bypass the consultation requirements.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can apply to bypass consultation requirements if they can demonstrate that the works are urgent and necessary for health and safety reasons.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the unsafe condition of the gutters and downpipes, along with health and safety concerns, was crucial.
