VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Access Control System Upgrade

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for an urgent replacement of an access control system in a residential building. The decision was based on the urgency of the work and the absence of any harm to the tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and no prejudice is caused to the tenants.

Topics

consultation requirementsaccess control systemsurgency

Provisions

section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant a request to waive consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent replacement of an access control system.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for the urgent replacement of an access control system in a residential property. The Tribunal found that the installation was urgent and no prejudice was caused to the tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference :

LON/00AW/LDC/2023/0146

Property : Flats 1-28, [NAME], 6 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] : [COMPANY]

Respondents : [redacted] Representatives : None Type of Application : Dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”)

Tribunal Member :

Mr [NAME] Chairman

Date of Decision : 29 November 2023

DECISION

2

Decision

1. The application for dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of a replacement access control system for the building is GRANTED unconditionally.

Reasons

The Applicant’s Case

2. Application to the Tribunal dated 9 May 2023, received on 2 June 2023, was made for a dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) (set out in the appendix). The subject matter was a replacement access control system, including door controllers, card readers, software, cabling and key fobs. This was described as urgent as the previous computer had malfunctioned. Following hard drive replacement the software was found to be non-compatible with newer versions of MS Windows, resulting in an obsolete system. This required new hardware and software. This was needed to ensure residents’ access to the building was maintained. The anticipated cost was circa £20,000. The work was said to have been carried out. A quotation no 49870 dated 17 February 2023 from [COMPANY] for £14,391 (excluding VAT) was provided. A quotation no QU027426 from [COMPANY] dated 7 February 2023 for £15,879.80 (excluding VAT) was also provided.

3. Directions were issued on 19 June 2023 that the matter be dealt with by written representations, unless any party made a request for an oral hearing, which none did. The directions required publicity to be given to the application in the block. This was confirmed to the Tribunal. In addition, the respondents were invited to respond to the application.

4. Direction 4 required the applicant to prepare a paginated digital bundle and to include the Directions. Although a bundle of 108 pages was provided, it was not paginated and omitted the Directions. The Tribunal expects all parties to comply with Directions, which are intended to assist the Tribunal in dealing with cases efficiently. The applicant is advised to ensure that any future applications fully comply with Directions.

The Property

5. From the application form, the property comprises a purpose built period mansion block on the corner of South Kensington and Brompton district. It comprises 28 flats and 8 commercial units on ground and lower levels. The Tribunal did not inspect the property.

The Leases

6. A sample lease was supplied, but the Tribunal makes no finding as to payability or reasonableness of the costs to be incurred as that is outside the scope of this application.

3

The Respondents’ Cases

7. The lessees did not respond to the application.

The Law

8. Section 20ZA is set out in the appendix to this decision. The Tribunal has discretion to grant dispensation when it considers it reasonable to do so. In addition, the Supreme Court Judgment in [COMPANY] v [NAME] and Others [2013] UKSC 14 empowers the Tribunal to grant dispensation on terms or subject to conditions.

Findings

9. The Tribunal finds that installation of the replacement access control system was urgent, to ensure that access to the building and its security could be maintained. No lessee has objected to the application. The Tribunal has not identified any prejudice caused to any lessee as a result of the application. Accordingly, the Tribunal grants dispensation unconditionally.

10. This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs have been reasonably incurred or are payable. The residential leaseholders continue to enjoy the protection of sections 19 and 27A of the Act.

11. This application has no bearing on the commercial occupiers of the building who are outside the scope of section 20 of the Act and non-parties.

[NAME] Chairman

29 November 2023

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

• The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its decisions by virtue of the rule 36 (2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below.

• If a party wishes to appeal against this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

• The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

• If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not

4

complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

• The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

5

SCHEDULE OF LESSEES

1 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME], [NAME] 2 [NAME], Mr [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 3 [NAME], [NAME] 4 [NAME], [NAME] El Markabi & [NAME] [NAME] Ha 5 [NAME], [COMPANY] 6 [NAME], Dr [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 7 [NAME], [COMPANY] 8 [NAME], [COMPANY] 9 [NAME], [NAME] and Rajalakshmi Balasubramanian 10 [NAME] Mr [NAME] 11 [NAME] Mr [APPELLANT] & Mrs [APPELLANT] 12 [NAME] [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] (Freeholder) 13 [APPELLANT] 14 [NAME] Mrs [NAME] 15 [NAME] [NAME] 16 [NAME] [COMPANY] 17 [NAME] [NAME], viz. [NAME].[NAME]. [NAME], A.Y. [NAME] & [NAME] 18 [NAME] Mr [APPELLANT] 19 [NAME] [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] (Freeholder) 20 [NAME] Mr [NAME] 21 [NAME] Ms [NAME] 22 [NAME] Mr [NAME] 23 [NAME], [NAME] M [NAME] [NAME] 24 [NAME], Mr [NAME] 25 [NAME] [COMPANY] 26 [NAME] Mr [NAME] [NAME] 27 [NAME] Mr [NAME] 28 [NAME] W.L.L

6

Appendix

Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (1)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. (2)In section 20 and this section— “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months. (3)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a)if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b)in any circumstances so prescribed. (4)In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5)Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord— (a)to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants’ association representing them, (b)to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c)to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d)to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e)to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements. (6)Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a)may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b)may make different provision for different purposes.

7

(7)Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

📊 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 landlord shows that the works are urgent.
  • The landlord demonstrates that the tenants will not suffer any prejudice.
  • The landlord proves that there is no significant impact on the tenants' well-being.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that went against the claimant in these cases.)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for the urgent replacement of an access control system.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, and the tenants were the respondents.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the installation was urgent and no prejudice was caused 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 argument that the replacement was urgent and necessary to maintain residents' access to the building was crucial.

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 be able to bypass consultation requirements if their work is deemed urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence included quotations for the work and confirmation that the work was urgent.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek 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.