AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·26 March 2025

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Unforeseen Circumstances During Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to the landlord to bypass the usual consultation process because unexpected issues arose during the works at the address. The judge ruled that the landlord should be exempt from the consultation requirement to avoid further costs and delays.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements if the additional works were unforeseeable and proceeding with the works was important to avoid prejudice and additional costs.

Topics

statutory consultation requirementsdispensation from consultation

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to obligations placed on landlords regarding communication with tenants about proposed works or agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation to the landlord from the statutory consultation requirements due to unforeseen circumstances during the works.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation to the landlord from the statutory consultation requirements due to unforeseen circumstances during the works at 18 Upper Grove. Judge Adrian Jack presided over the case on 12th March 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/OOAH/LDC/2024/0205 Applicant: [redacted] : Various leaseholders of 18 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE], none of whom have responded Property : 18 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tribunal : Judge Adrian Jack, Tribunal Member [NAME] MA MRICS Date of decision : 12th March 2025

DECISION

1. The Applicant/landlord has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of certain works carried out at 18 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]. 2. [ADDRESS] is a residential property comprising a converted block of self-contained flats constructed around 1890. block contained six flats in total and was housed in one building. premises were converted at an unknown date, possibly around 1970. Four flats 1, 4,5, and 6 were accessed via independent entrances at basement and ground levels. The two other flats 2 and 3 were accessed via a communal staircase and entrance door at ground level. The premises have four storeys comprising a basement, ground and two upper floors.

3. Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the regulations made under it, a landlord contemplating carrying out major works (defined as works costing more than £250 per flat) has to carry out a consultation, on pain of having the recoverability of the cost of the works capped at £250 per flat.

4. In this case, stage one consultation was undertaken on 11 November 2022 in respect of the works to remove the bulkhead between flats 2 and 3. A Stage two notice was sent to all leaseholders on the 14 December 2022. A revised Stage 2 was sent on the 13 December 2023.

2 5. Once the wall had been stripped out, a gas pipe was found. This necessitated additional works including additional advice from a structural engineer advice. This was not possible to foresee until the work had started and the gas pipe was found. The additional costs for the [NAME] were necessary as the [NAME] could not continue safely without their guidance, due to dealing with gas pipes and aspects outside their qualifications. The overspend is said to have been £3,285.

6. The Tribunal gave directions in this matter on 27th November 2024. The tenants have not participated in the application, which has therefore continued on an undefended basis.

7. In our judgment this is a quintessential case for the grant of dispensation and we do so. The additional works were not foreseeable. It was important that the works proceeded. A delay to permit the carrying out of a section 20 consultation would have caused prejudice to the tenants and further additional costs.

8. This dispensation does not mean that the tenants cannot challenge the cost or quality of the work done. It simply dispenses with the consultation requirement.

9. There is no application in respect of the fees for applying to the Tribunal, so we make no order in respect of such fees.

DETERMINATION (a) The Tribunal grants a dispensation pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the works the subject of the application. (b) The Tribunal makes no order in respect of the fees payable to the Tribunal.

Name: Judge Adrian Jack Date: 12th March 2025

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

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 additional works were unforeseeable until the original work had started and a gas pipe was discovered.
It was important that the works proceeded safely, as the original contractors could not continue without expert guidance.
Delaying the works to conduct a new consultation would have caused prejudice to the tenants and incurred further costs.
The tenants did not participate in the application, so it proceeded without opposition.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision allowed the landlord to bypass the statutory consultation requirements for the works at the address.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, while the leaseholders did not respond to the application.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the additional works were unforeseeable and proceeding with the works was important to avoid prejudice and additional costs.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the additional works were unforeseeable and that proceeding with the works was important to avoid prejudice and additional costs.

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

The decision was in favour of 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 they can show that the additional works were unforeseeable and that proceeding with the works was important to avoid prejudice and additional costs.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the unforeseen discovery of a gas pipe during the works, which necessitated additional works and consultation.

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 seek 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.