First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a residential property management company to bypass consultation requirements for urgent fire safety works. The works were necessary due to failed fire dampers causing dangerous levels of carbon dioxide.
⚖️ Legal holding
A residential property management company is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 where there is an urgent need for fire safety works.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to certain works or long-term agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works done on a building or premises and 'qualifying long term agreement' as an agreement lasting over twelve months. The 'consultation requirements' refer to rules set by the Secretary of State regarding providing information to tenants, obtaining estimates, considering tenant proposals, and giving reasons for actions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent fire safety works.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent fire safety works at a residential property. The works were deemed necessary due to failed fire dampers preventing fresh air supply and causing elevated carbon dioxide levels.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BE/LDC/2025/0754 Property : [NAME], 235, 237 & 241 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] & 241 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Representative : N/A Type of [NAME] : Dispensation pursuant to Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 5 September 2025
DECISION
2 Decision of the Tribunal 1. The Tribunal determines to exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements provided by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The [NAME] 2. [APPELLANT] applied on behalf of the Applicant on 30 April 2025 under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), for dispensation from the consultation requirements provided for by Section 20 of the Act.
3. The [NAME] indicated that the subject of the dispensation [NAME] was in relation to supplying and installing a new control panel to the fire damper system and associated works at the Property.
4. The [NAME] explained that the reason that dispensation was sought was because the fire dampers have failed in the closed position preventing fresh air supply to the Property. This is causing elevated carbon dioxide levels. Procedure 5. The Tribunal issued directions on 24 June 2025.
6. In those directions the Tribunal set out that the matter would be determined on the basis of the papers provided in the week commencing 1 September 2025.
7. The directions gave an opportunity for the Respondents to request a hearing. No hearing was requested so the matter has proceeded based on the papers provided for the Tribunal.
8. The directions also provided an opportunity for the Respondents to provide a statement objecting to the [NAME]. No responses were received by the Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal has considered the written bundle of 178 pages, in support of the [NAME].
3 Determination The Background 10. No description of the Property was included in the [NAME], however, it appears to be a standalone purpose-built development with commercial use on the lower floors, with 41 flats on the floors above. The Applicant is the [COMPANY].
11. As set out in the Tribunal’s directions, Section 20 consultation is not required or relevant in connection with non-residential premises and the findings of the Tribunal will not affect commercial occupiers in the Property, as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal does not extend to commercial premises.
12. The evidence and submissions of the Applicant is as follows: i. The [NAME] is for an unconditional dispensation of the consultation requirements prescribed under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to works to replace the fire damper panel. ii. Correspondence from Savills’ Asset Engineering team outlining the investigation of the issue and proposed solution. iii. Quotations from two companies in the amounts of £10,862.50 +VAT and £8,394.10 +VAT in respect of the required works. iv. Confirmation that a Section 20 consultation process was started, but could not be fully completed due to the urgency of the works. v. A chain of correspondence with one leaseholder, notifying them of the Section 20ZA [NAME] and answering questions about one of the proposed suppliers. The leaseholder states that they are not opposing the appointment of the proposed supplier.
13. In accordance with Tribunal directions, the Applicant notified leaseholders of the Section 20ZA [NAME], including how to respond. No responses from leaseholders were received by the Tribunal. The Applicant has also confirmed that it received no objections. The Law 14. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under Section 20ZA of the Act. The wording of Section 20ZA, subsection (1) provides:
4 ‘Where an [NAME] is made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreements, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements’.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 (Daejan) is the leading authority on how the statutory provisions are to be interpreted. The Tribunal’s Decision 16. The Tribunal determines to grant the [NAME]. Reasons for the Tribunal’s Decision 17. The statement from the Applicant explains the reasons the works needed to be actioned quickly without the time afforded by a full Section 20 consultation.
18. No objections were received from leaseholders.
19. The Tribunal therefore determines that it is reasonable to grant the [NAME] sought.
20. Both parties should note that this determination does not concern the issue of whether the service charge costs demanded in connection with the works to the fire damper system are reasonable or indeed payable. The Respondents are able, if it appears to them to be appropriate, to make an [NAME] under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as to reasonableness and payability.
Name: [NAME]: 5 September 2025
5 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. The [NAME] 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 [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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation From Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Water Booster Set Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Exemption for Fire Safety Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Recovery of Energy Consumption and District Hea…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Fire Alarm Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Emergency Building Repairs Without Leaseholder…
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 are urgent and necessary for safety.
- It is reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements due to the urgency.
- There is a high risk of imminent major failure in the property.
- Service charges for urgent safety works are recoverable.
- Works are critical for residents' safety.
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 from consultation requirements for urgent fire safety works.
Who was involved?
A residential property management company and leaseholders of the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the dispensation because the works were urgent and necessary for fire safety.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the works were urgent and necessary for fire safety.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
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 obtain dispensation for urgent fire safety works.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing the urgency and necessity of the works.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, the decision can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property management and fire safety.
