First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Alarm Works
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a property management company to bypass the usual consultation process for leaseholders regarding urgent fire alarm renewal works. The tribunal ruled that the works were urgent and leaseholders had been informed.
⚖️ Legal holding
It is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 where the works are urgent and leaseholders have been notified.
📖 What the law says
Under this section, a tribunal can decide to waive consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements themselves are defined by regulations set by the Secretary of State.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent fire alarm renewal works.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from the consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent fire alarm renewal works in a residential property. The tribunal found that the leaseholders were aware of the works and none had objected.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/LDC/2022/0104 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : P: PAPERREMOTE Property : [NAME], 64-68 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : Written Application by [RESPONDENT] (As managing agent) Respondent : [redacted] : Not represented Type of application : Application for dispensation from consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members :
Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 8 August 2022
DECISION
2 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE,. A face-to- face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and no-one requested the same and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents that the tribunal was referred to are in a bundle of 64 pages, the contents of which have been noted. The order made is described at the end of these reasons. Decision of the tribunal 1. The tribunal exercises its discretion to grant dispensation from the consultation requirements of s20ZA in respect of the works required renew the fire alarm installation in [NAME]. The application 2. The Applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) in respect of works required to renew the fire alarm system serving [NAME].
3. Directions were made on 7 June 2022. The only issue for the tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This decision does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. The hearing 4. A written application was made by [COMPANY], the managing agents of the property. The case was decided on paper and no appearances were made. The tribunal considered the bundle which included the written application form, copy letters to the leaseholders, estimates and a specimen lease. The total cost of the works was £3585.85 including VAT. The background 5. The property which is the subject of this application is described a residential block of eight flats and two commercial units.
6. A specimen lease has been provided showing the management of the block is to be in accordance with the head lease to the management company, a copy of which has not been provided. The specimen flat lease provided contains obligations to pay a service charge. On the documents provided it is not possible to determine whether the scope of the works is within the service charge provisions of the lease. If this is in doubt a separate
3 application will be necessary under section 27A to determine the reasonableness and pay ability of any service charge. A list of leaseholders has been provided with confirmation from the agents that they have been notified of the proposed works. No representations have been received objecting to the application as to the scope of the works or appropriateness of the application. The tribunal’s decision 7. The tribunal exercises its discretion to grant dispensation from the consultation requirements of under s20 ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 8. The works are required to renew the fire alarm system within the block. dispensation is sought as the scope of the works is greater than was originally envisaged which has taken the cost of the works over the consultation threshold. As the building did not have a functioning fire alarm system works were carried out as a matter of urgency and dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20 was requested.
9. The tribunal is satisfied that the leaseholders are aware of the works required and none have objected.
10. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under s.20ZA of the Act. The wording of s.20ZA is significant. Subs. (1) provides: “Where an application is made to a [leasehold valuation] 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” (emphasis added).
11. The Tribunal understands that the purposes of the consultation requirements is to ensure that leaseholders are given the fullest possible opportunity to make observations about expenditure of money for which they will in part be liable. The test laid down by the Supreme Court in [NAME] v [NAME] is whether the leaseholders would suffer prejudice if the application were to be granted and a full consultation not carried out.
12. The tribunal considers that there is no prejudice to the leaseholders in granting dispensation as the building had no functioning fire alarm and leaseholders had been consulted about the works. The tribunal is satisfied the works were urgent and that dispensation should be granted. The
4 potential risk of delay outweighs any prejudice caused by a shorter consultation. Name: [NAME] [NAME]: 8 August 2022
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.
1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL].
2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.
3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.
4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
5 Appendix of relevant legislation
S20 Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements
(1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) a leasehold valuation tribunal.
(2) In this section "relevant contribution", in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement.
(3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount.
(5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.
(6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount.
(7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.[FN1]
6 [FN1] ss.20-20ZA substituted for s.20 subject to savings specified in SI 2004/669 art.2(d)(i)-(vi) by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (2002 c.15), Pt 2 c 5 s 151
[POSTCODE] Consultation requirements: supplementary
(1) Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation 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 [NAME], 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) 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.[...] [FN1]
7 [FN1] ss.20-20ZA substituted for s.20 subject to savings specified in SI 2004/669 art.2(d)(i)-(vi) by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (2002 c.15), Pt 2 c 5 s 151
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Repair Dispensation Without Leaseholder Consult…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Dampness Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Repairs Due to Unprecedent…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Works to Prevent Water Ingress
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Premium for Collective Enfranchisement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation From Consultation Requirements Due To Urgent …
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 works were urgent because the building did not have a functioning fire alarm system.
- The leaseholders were aware of the proposed works and did not object to the application.
- The potential risk of delaying the fire alarm renewal outweighed any prejudice from a shorter consultation.
- The scope of the works exceeded the original plan, pushing the cost above the consultation threshold.
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 the consultation requirements for urgent fire alarm renewal works.
Who was involved?
The property management company and the leaseholders of the residential property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements because the works were urgent and leaseholders had been notified.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the works were urgent and leaseholders had been notified 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 the consultation requirements if their works are urgent and leaseholders are informed.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Letters to leaseholders, estimates, and a specimen lease were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
