VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed the landlord to carry out urgent electrical repairs without consulting the tenants because the repairs were necessary for safety reasons.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant may obtain dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent works where there is no prejudice to a person.

Topics

dispensationurgent workselectrical repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant dispensation to skip 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 for urgent electrical repairs without prior consultation due to safety concerns.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to the applicant for urgent electrical repairs at a property in Peckham, London, without prior consultation with leaseholders, due to safety concerns.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME]) Case reference : LON/00BE/LDC/2023/0106 [NAME] : [ADDRESS], Peckham, London [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [APPELLANT] Respondents : [redacted] : N/A

Type of [NAME] : [NAME] for dispensation to consult – section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal : Judge Tagliavini Date of decision : 8 August 2023

DECISION

___________________________________________________________________________

2

The tribunal’s summary decision

(1.) The tribunal grants dispensation pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’) in respect of urgent works to the electrics at [ADDRESS], Peckham, [POSTCODE] London as identified in the estimate of A [COMPANY].

_________________________________________________________

The [NAME]

1. This is an [NAME] made pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’) seeking dispensation for the consultation requirements in respect of the works required to urgently address faulty electrics at [ADDRESS], Peckham, London [POSTCODE] (‘the premises’).

Background

2. The subject premises comprises a purpose built block of nine flats.

3. The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of repairs to fix the faulty electrics in the [NAME]. These health and safety works were carried out urgently following some electric testing which revealed that some of the electrics were dangerous and in need of repair to ensure the safety of the owners and prevent further damage to the [NAME]. In light of the urgency of the required works they were carried out without consultation with the [NAME]. The cost of the works was estimated at £9,600 (inc. VAT) as set out in the estimate of A [COMPANY].

4. The tribunal was satisfied the [NAME] had been informed of this [NAME] as stated in an email from the applicant to the tribunal dated 31 May 2023. However, no response/objections have been received by the tribunal from the respondents.

The hearing

5. The [NAME] was determined by the tribunal on the papers as no party requested an oral hearing. In [NAME] its decision the tribunal took into account the information provided by the applicant by way of a bundle comprising 51 electronic pages which included a witness statement from [NAME] [NAME] manager dated 24 May 2023. No documentation was received from the respondents.

3

The tribunal’s decision and reasons

6. The tribunal grants dispensation pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’) in respect of the repairs to the electrical works at the subject premises.

7. The tribunal has had regard to the urgent nature of the works as evidenced by the reports included in the documents provided to the tribunal and the absence of any objection by the respondents to either the works that have been carried out or to this [NAME]. The tribunal has also considered the absence of prejudice caused by the lack of consultation pursuant to section 20 of the 2985 Act in respect of the works for which the applicant seeks dispensation. Therefore, in the circumstances the tribunal considers it reasonable and proportionate to grant the [NAME] sought; [COMPANY] v Benson and others [2013] UKSC 14.

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 8 August 2023

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] 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, the [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 necessary.
  • There is no prejudice to leaseholders.
  • Leaseholders have been informed and did not object.
  • The application meets statutory requirements.
  • A history of non-compliance or persistent hazards exists.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal granted dispensation for urgent electrical repairs without prior consultation with leaseholders.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and necessary for safety reasons, and there was no prejudice to 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 necessary for safety reasons, and there was no prejudice to 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 they can show that the works are necessary for safety reasons and there is no prejudice to the leaseholders.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as a witness statement from the property manager and estimates from an electrician were important.

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 recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case 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.