VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Lift Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for urgent lift repairs, ensuring the work was necessary and fair to the tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are necessary and there is no demonstrated prejudice to the tenants.

Topics

dispensation from consultation requirementsmajor works to lifts

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements if it is reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to works done on a building or premises, and the consultation requirements involve providing details to tenants or their representatives, obtaining estimates, considering tenant suggestions, 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 major lift repairs under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for major lift repairs in a property, finding the works necessary and without prejudice to the tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2025/0836 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] Representative : - Type of application : [POSTCODE] Dispensation from consultation requirements Tribunal member(s) : [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 28 October 2025

DECISION

1. Dispensation is granted pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of major works to the lift in block 6 of Harley House.

2. The question of reasonableness of the works or cost was not included in this application, the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation.

2 Background 3. On 12 August the applicant landlord applied pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of repairs to the lift in Block 6 of [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. The lift was taken out of service on 10 July due to safety concerns around a worn bearing on one of the three divertor wheels at the top of the lift shaft.

4. Notice of Intention to carry out the works and a Schedule of Estimates was served on 21 July with a shortened consultation period ending on 4 August 2025.

5. The application is in respect of not only the divertor wheel which is now defective but also the third divertor wheel as it is of the same specification and age as the defective wheel. The managing agents consider this is the most economical way of dealing with the lift and moreover limits the disruption to the leaseholders. Dispensation had been granted in respect of one of the three wheels in 2024, the work had taken fourteen weeks to complete.

6. The incumbent lift contractor, [NAME], provided an estimate on 18 July, scaffolders attended on 28-30 July, the divertor wheels were removed on 4 August and [NAME] attended to reinstate the wheels on 8 August. However one of the wheels had to be returned to the fabricator for a small adjustment. The work was scheduled to be competed on 13 August and the lift brought back into service on the same day.

7. Three leaseholders had been particularly severely affected by the lift being out of order: one had had to move out to alternative accommodation, two others had become housebound with one missing several hospital appointments due to not being able to use the stairs.

8. The estimated cost of the works is £26,907.60 inclusive of a £2500 contingency sum, fees and VAT. Some of the cost of the works, divided over the 107 flats in the blocks comprising the premises, will exceed the £250 threshold beyond which a statutory consultation under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is required unless dispensation under section 20ZA is granted.

9. The Tribunal gave directions on 12 September 2025 and these were complied with. No respondent leaseholder objected to the application and three sent emails supporting the application.

3 The law 10. By [POSTCODE] of the Act “Where an application is made to the appropriate 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.” Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision 11. The relevant test to be applied in an application for dispensation was set out by the Supreme Court in [COMPANY] v [NAME] & Ors [2013] UKSC 14 where it was held that the purpose of the section 20 consultation procedure was to protect tenants from paying for inappropriate works or paying an inappropriate amount. Dispensation should not result in prejudice to the tenant.

12. I determine from the evidence before me that the works were necessary, were required to be completed urgently given the effect on the resident leaseholders and that no prejudice to the lessees has been demonstrated or asserted.

13. On the evidence before it, and in these circumstances, I am satisfied that the application for dispensation should be granted.

Determination

14. Dispensation is granted pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of major works to the lift in block 6 of Harley House.

Signed: [NAME]

28 October 2025

📊 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 works were necessary because the lift was out of service due to safety concerns.
  • The works were required urgently because several leaseholders were severely affected by the lift being out of order.
  • No leaseholder objected to the application, and some even supported it.
  • Replacing the third divertor wheel at the same time as the defective one was considered the most economical approach.
  • The court found no evidence that granting dispensation would cause prejudice to the tenants.

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 major lift repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the leaseholders of the property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were necessary and there was no demonstrated prejudice to the tenants.

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 necessity of the works and the lack of prejudice to the tenants were the most important arguments.

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 obtain dispensation if their works are necessary and fair to the tenants.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the necessity of the works and the impact on the tenants mattered.

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 such cases.

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.