VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for urgent fire safety improvements, ensuring that the building's fire alarm system and smoke detectors were updated promptly and efficiently.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are necessary and there is no prejudice to the tenants.

Topics

fire safetydispensation from consultation

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works if it is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to works on a building or other premises. The consultation requirements are detailed rules set by the Secretary of State through regulations.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent fire safety works under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for the installation of wireless smoke detectors and replacement of the fire alarm panel in a building constructed around 1909, ensuring fire safety measures were implemented without undue delay or cost to tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2025/0852 Property : 71-73 St James’s [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] Representative : - Type of application : [POSTCODE] Dispensation from consultation requirements Tribunal member(s) : [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 4 November 2025

DECISION

1. Dispensation is granted pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the installation of wireless smoke detectors inside each flat and replacement of the fire alarm panel.

2. The question of reasonableness of the works or cost was not included in this application, the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation.

2 Background 3. On 1 September the applicant applied pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of the replacement of the fire alarm panel and installation of wireless smoke detectors inside each of the flats.

4. The building which was constructed c1909 comprises two commercial units on the ground floor with a block of twenty six flats above. The application relates only to the residential accommodation.

5. On 19 June 2025 the fire alarm developed multiple faults. The panel was beyond repair and required replacement.

6. On 4 July a Fire Risk Assessment indicated that there was a serious breach: it was a requirement that smoke detectors must be installed inside each of the flats. A plan was drawn up to replace he panel and install the smoke detectors in the flats.

7. Notice of Intention to carry out the works was served on 14 July with a shortened consultation period of 10 days. A Schedule of Estimates with copies of two estimates was served on 25 July with a shortened consultation period of seven days. No observations were received in respect of either Notice.

8. The cheaper estimate was accepted, the total cost of the works, including fees was £17,675.80. The work was completed on 18 and 19 August 2025, the earliest available date the contractor could attend. In the interim, as there was effectively no fire alarm in place, the porters carried out a waking watch by an hourly inspection of the common parts.

9. The Tribunal gave directions on 17 September 2025 and these were complied with. No respondent leaseholder responded to the application.

The law 10. By [POSTCODE] of the Act “Where an application is made to the appropriate 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.”

3 Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision 11. The relevant test to be applied in an application for dispensation was set out by the Supreme Court in [COMPANY] v [NAME] & Ors [2013] UKSC 14 where it was held that the purpose of the section 20 consultation procedure was to protect tenants from paying for inappropriate works or paying an inappropriate amount. Dispensation should not result in prejudice to the tenant.

12. I determine from the evidence before me that the works were necessary, were required to be completed urgently given thee building was without the protection afforded by a working fire alarm system and that there had already been a breach of the Fire Risk Assessment requirements. Moreover, no prejudice to the lessees has been demonstrated or asserted.

13. On the evidence before it, and in these circumstances, I am satisfied that the application for dispensation should be granted.

Determination

14. Dispensation is granted pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the replacement of the fire alarm panel and installation of wireless smoke detectors inside each flat.

Signed: [NAME]

4 November 2025

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 Tribunal 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.

4 3. The application should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta- application-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper- tribunal-lands-chamber

4. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

5. The application 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 making the application is seeking.

📊 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

  • The fire alarm system had developed multiple faults and the panel was beyond repair, requiring urgent replacement.
  • A Fire Risk Assessment indicated a serious breach, requiring smoke detectors to be installed inside each flat.
  • The building was without a working fire alarm system, necessitating immediate action.
  • No leaseholder responded to the application or demonstrated any prejudice from the works.
  • The landlord accepted the cheaper of two estimates for the works.

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?

The landlord and the leaseholders of the building were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were necessary and there was no prejudice to the tenants.

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 necessary and there was no prejudice to the tenants.

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 obtain dispensation for urgent fire safety works.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the necessity of the works and the lack of prejudice to the tenants 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 get 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.