VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Compressor Replacements

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a property management company to replace faulty compressors in a retirement home without consulting the tenants because the works were deemed urgent and essential. This decision was made under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant can obtain dispensation from consultation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and essential.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent workssection 20ZA

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

Under this section, a tribunal can grant permission to skip consultation requirements if the works are deemed urgent and essential. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State regarding providing information to tenants about proposed works or agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation for urgent compressor replacements without consulting tenants.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to an applicant to carry out urgent works to replace four compressors serving a property without consulting the tenants, citing the urgent and essential nature of the works under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1. Judge Tagliavini presided over the case.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BF/LDC/2022/0203 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : P: PAPERREMOTE Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] : N/A Type of [NAME] : For the dispensation of consultation pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 13 February 2023

DECISION

2

Summary decision of the tribunal (i) The tribunal grants the [NAME] for dispensation from consultation to carry out works of replacement to four compressors serving the subject Property i.e., two compressors in Unit 1 at a cost of £8,541.59 plus VAT and the replacement of two compressors in Unit 3 at a cost of £8,541.59 (plus VAT) totalling £20,499.82 including VAT. _____________________________________________________ The [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’ due to urgent works being required at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘[NAME]’) and include works to replace two compressors in Unit 1 at a cost of £8,541.59 plus VAT and the replacement of two compressors in Unit 3 at a cost of £8,541.59 (plus VAT) totalling £20,499.82 including VAT 2. [NAME] comprises a purpose-built block of 58 one- and two- bedroom apartments for an [NAME] of the over sixties. A full list of resident and non-resident [NAME] was provided to the tribunal with contact details for each and the applicant confirmed in an email dated 19 December 2022 that the lessees had been notified of this [NAME] in accordance with the tribunal’s directions. The hearing 3. The determination was carried on the papers provided to the tribunal by the applicant in a bundle of 77 pages, as no party requested an oral hearing.

4. In the [NAME], the applicant stated that a problem with the supply of hot water at Elles House had been reported and was often tepid or cold. A repair was initially carried out but this proved to be unsuccessful in remedying the problem. Further investigations by [NAME] identified a number of compressors had burnt out and required replacement.

5. The documents relied upon by the applicant included a copy of the relevant lease, a letter dated 9 June 2002 to the [NAME] notifying them of the urgent works required to remedy the problem of the supply of hot water to [NAME] and the applicant’s intention to make this [NAME] to the tribunal. An estimate dated 03/08/2022 from [COMPANY] was also included, which set out the works required and the cost as well as some correspondence indicating the [NAME] wished the work to be completed at an early date. No objections or other correspondence was received the [NAME].

6. A letter dated 6 December 2022 to the tribunal from the applicant confirmed the required works had been carried out as a matter of urgency due to elderly nature of the [NAME] who might find the lack of heating and hot water particularly detrimental. The tribunal’s decision and reasons 7. In the absence of any objections from the [NAME] to this [NAME] and the proposed works and their urgent and essential nature, the tribunal determines that it is reasonable to grant the [NAME] for dispensation from consultation to carry out works of replacement to four compressors serving the subject Property;. [COMPANY] v [NAME] & Others [2013] UKSC 14.

7. In conclusion, the tribunal grants the dispensation sought.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date:

13 February 2023

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

4 The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, [NAME] and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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

  • Works are considered urgent and essential.
  • Dispensation from consultation is sought under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  • There is no prejudice to leaseholders from the proposed works.
  • The works are related to health and safety or preventing damage to the property.
  • Urgent works are recommended following a fire safety risk assessment.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The application does not meet the statutory requirements for consideration.
  • The property is already fully tenanted.
  • The tenant did not comply with the lease requirements regarding flooring.

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 to the applicant to carry out urgent works to replace faulty compressors without consulting the tenants.

Who was involved?

The case involved a property management company and the leaseholders of a retirement home.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation because the works were urgent and essential, and there were no objections from the leaseholders.

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 mattered most was that the works were urgent and essential, and there were no objections from the leaseholders.

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 be able to obtain dispensation for urgent works if the works are deemed essential and there are no objections from the tenants.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence and documents such as a letter notifying the leaseholders of the urgent works and an estimate from a plumbing company mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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.