First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Building Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a residents management company to bypass the usual consultation process for repairing the building's ventilation system. This decision was made due to safety concerns raised by the London Fire Service.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord is entitled to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements under certain conditions.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant permission to skip the consultation requirements for building repairs if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to consult tenants or recognized tenants' associations before making changes or entering into agreements.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for necessary building repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to the ventilation system in a high-rise building. The decision was based on the necessity to ensure the safety of the residents.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AC/LDC/2024/0081 Property
: 1-37 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] Representative : In person Type of Application :
For dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal :
Mr [APPELLANT] (Hons) LLM Property Law MA FRICS
Date of Decision : 30 July 2024
DECISION
This has been a remote paper determination, which has been consented to by the parties. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and no one requested same.
The documents the Tribunal were referred to were in a bundle of some 62 pages.
Decision
(1) The tribunal determines that unconditional dispensation should be granted from the consultation requirements from section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) in respect of the property 1-37 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], Pimlico, London [POSTCODE]. (2) We make no determination as to the reasonableness of the costs of same, these being matters which can be considered, if necessary, under the provisions of s27A and s19 of the Act. The Application 1. This Application is made by [COMPANY] dated 22 February 2024.
2. The Application seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
3. The Application is concerned solely with the question of what consultation if any should be given of the consultation requirements of section 20 of the 1985 for works costing in excess of £250 per flat. It is not concerned with the reasonableness or payability of any service charges which may arise. The Determination 4. A written Application was made by [COMPANY] on behalf of [COMPANY] dated 22 February 2024. The case was decided on paper and no appearances were made. The tribunal considered the written bundle of 62 pages, in support of the Application. Background 5. The property comprises; 37 flats within a high-rise development.
6. The Applicant in this case is a [COMPANY].
7. This Application has been issued because; “The Automatic Opening Ventilation system (“the AOV”) at the building wasn’t functioning properly, namely the vents were not opening on floors 5,6 & 7.” 8. An accompanying letter to residents dated 24 June 2024 noted that “we have been working with London Fire Service to ensure that the building is safe for yourselves as property owners and residents and therefore to mitigate the current risk, and the London Fire Brigade along with our Risk assessors have confirmed no additional interim measures need to be installed but highlighted that this does need to be repaired as soon as possible.” 9. The application at box three states the application is being made retrospectively.
10. The [NAME] dated 20 May 2024, provided for the tenants to be given copies of the Application form, a brief statement to explain the reasons for the Application and display a copy of the [NAME] in a prominent place in the common parts of the property, by 3 June 2024.
11. The [NAME] also note that any leaseholder who opposes the Application should by the 24 June 2024 complete the reply form and return it to the tribunal.
12. The only issue for the tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements of section 20 of the 1985 Act. This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. Documents 13. By email dated 23 May 2024 the applicant confirmed that the [NAME] in respect of distribution of copies of [NAME] and display of in communal area had taken place. The tribunal has received no copies of Reply Forms from any leaseholders. 1The tribunal’s decision
14. The tribunal grants dispensation under section 20 ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation) (England) 2003 for the works set out in the application.
15. We are, aware of the judgment in [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14. The application for dispensation is not challenged.
16. The Supreme Court (Lord [NAME] at para 50) accepted that there must be real prejudice to the tenants. Indeed, the Respondents do not oppose the application. It is accepted that we have the power to grant dispensation on such terms as we think fit. However, the Landlord is entitled to decide the identity of the contractors who carry out the work, when they are done, by whom and the amount. The safety net for the Respondents is to be found in sections 19 and 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
17.
Accordingly, we find that unconditional dispensation should be granted. In making our decision we have borne in mind the quotes which we were referred, which in our finding clearly indicate that works are required at the Property.
18. Our decision is in respect of the dispensation from the provisions of s20 of the Act only. [NAME]: [NAME] 30 July 2024.
ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-Tier at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case.
2. 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.
3. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request to an extension of time and the reason for not 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.
4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (ie 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
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Emergency Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Emergency Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Repairs Approved Without Leaseholder Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Electrical Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent BMS Upgrade
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Health and Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent 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 landlord has a right to bypass the statutory consultation requirements under certain conditions.
- The landlord can avoid consultation requirements if there's no real prejudice to tenants.
- Urgent repairs can justify a landlord skipping consultation requirements.
- Works deemed necessary for safety can exempt a landlord from consultation.
- Dispensation is granted if there's a risk to life and no tenant 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 usual consultation process for necessary building repairs.
Who was involved?
The case involved a residents management company and various leaseholders of the building.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation based on the urgency and necessity of the repairs to ensure resident safety.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation) (England) 2003 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the necessity of the repairs to address safety concerns.
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 might be able to obtain dispensation if they can demonstrate the necessity and urgency of the repairs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included confirmation from the London Fire Service regarding the safety risks and the need for repairs.
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 seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property management and repairs.
