First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

HAV/00HB/LDC/2025/0681

Property

:

The [APPELLANT], 166-176 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[NAME]

Respondent: [redacted]

[COMPANY] 1- 3, 5-12, 17-19 [NAME] 4 [NAME] [NAME] 13 [NAME] 14 [NAME] 15 [COUNSEL] [NAME] 16

Representative

:

Type of Application

:

To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works (section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985)

Tribunal Member

Hearing and venue

:

:

Judge R Cooper

Paper determination

Date of Decision

: 17 October 2025

DECISION

Summary decision

1. The Applicant’s application pursuant to s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in section 20 is granted on the following conditions:

(a) none of the Applicant’s costs of this application for dispensation (including [NAME]’s costs) are to be recovered from the leaseholders through the service charge, (b) a copy of reports of the fire risk assessments conducted on 12 January 2024 and 4 July 2025 are to be provided to the Respondents within 28 days, and (c) a copy of the FRAEW survey report is to be provided to the Respondents within 28 days of the date on which it is received by AML or the date of this notice (if it has already been received)

2. This grant of dispensation does not affect the Respondent leaseholders’ rights to challenge the reasonableness or payability of the service charges under s27A and 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’). If they wish to do so, they must make a separate application to the Residential Property Tribunal for that purpose.

Documents referred to in this decision are referenced by [ ].

The application

3. On 10 July 2025 the Tribunal received an application from [NAME] (‘[NAME]’) on behalf of [APPELLANT[COMPANY] (‘the Applicant’) which is responsible for repair, maintenance and the provision of services under the terms of the tripartite leases in respect of The [APPELLANT], 166-176 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (‘the Property’).

4. The Applicant requests dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed on them as a landlord by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Act (‘the 1985 Act’). Their application is made under Section 20ZA of the 1985 Act for dispensation in respect of urgent fire safety works discovered during external rendering works and as identified in the fire risk assessment (FRA) dated 4 July 2025, namely • Installation of an L1 fire alarm system • Commissioning of a Fire Risk Appraisal of the External Walls (‘FRAEW’) survey • Costs of a waking watch with effect from 10 July 2025.

5. The property for which they seek dispensation in relation to these matters is described in the application as a purpose-built block of less than 11 metres comprising residential flats over commercial premises that was built in about 2007.

6. Directions were given by the Tribunal on 18 July 2025 regarding information to be provided. They included a requirement for respondents to set out any objections to the application as well as any objection to it being dealt with on the papers without a hearing. The Tribunal received responses from four of

the respondents. A number included submissions in relation to the application. One respondent (Ms [RESPONDENT]) objected to the matter being dealt with on the papers.

7. The first Respondent applied on 25 July 2025 for their name to be changed from [COMPANY] to [RESPONDENT], for the addition of a further respondent and for an order under s20C of the 1985 Act.

8. The Tribunal gave further directions on 15 September 2025 asking Ms [NAME] to provide within 7 days reasons for her objection to the matter being decided on the papers. Ms [NAME] confirmed by email she had no objection.

9. There was no inspection. No party requested one and it was not considered necessary for a fair determination of the issues.

The Documents

10. The documents considered by the Tribunal included

(i) The application dated 10 July 2025

(ii) The application of the first respondent dated 25 July 2025

(iii) Directions notices

(iv) Responses to the applications

(v) The fire risk assessment (FRA) dated 4 July 2025 and letters to residents dated 9 and 11 July 2025 from [NAME].

(vi) Leases relating to flats 4 (both head- and sub-leases) and 16 in the Property.

Determination and reasons

11. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was proportionate and in the interests of justice to consider the application on the papers without a hearing, given the FRA had identified a number of high-risk items and recommended urgent steps needed to be taken by the Applicant in response. Ms [APPELLANT] no longer objected to a paper determination.

12. Having considered the application and the totality of the evidence, including the representations made by the Respondents, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable for dispensation to be granted from the consultation requirements under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’) on the conditions set out below in paragraph 34 for following the reasons.

The legal framework

13. The purpose of the statutory consultation process in s20 of the 1985 Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 is to ensure that leaseholders are given the fullest opportunity to comment on expenditure which they will be liable to pay for (at least in part) through the service charge.

14. A failure to consult in respect of ‘qualifying works’ or ‘qualifying long term agreements’ results in the freeholder being unable to recover more than £250 per flat unless dispensation is granted by the Tribunal (s20(1), (6) and (7)).

15. The relevant law relating to an application for dispensation is s20ZA of the 1985 Act. In summary, the Tribunal may grant dispensation from the consultation requirement if it is satisfied it is reasonable to do so.

16. The majority of the Supreme Court in [COMPANY] v Benson & others [2013] UKSC 14 laid down principles to guide Tribunals considering how to determine s20ZA dispensation applications (paragraphs 40 to 69). As the proper purpose of the consultation requirements is to ensure tenants (leaseholders) are protected from paying for inappropriate works or from paying more than would be appropriate, the Supreme Court said the Tribunal must determine the extent to which the tenants have been prejudiced by the failure to consult. They confirmed that tenants, therefore, must identify the prejudice they might or would not have suffered had the formal requirements been fully adhered to, but which they would suffer if unconditional dispensation was given. In other words, the tenants must be able to identify what they would have said or done had they been properly consulted. The Supreme Court also confirmed that conditions could be imposed on any dispensation granted.

Discussion and conclusions

17. The Applicant says a notice of intention was sent to the Respondents, but no copy of that notice was provided with their application. Mr [NAME], however, included with his response a copy of a notice of intention dated 11 July 2025 which both invites comments and quotations within 30 days, but at the same time indicates the application for dispensation had already been made to the Tribunal.

18. The majority of the respondents agree to the application for dispensation either in whole or in part principally on the basis of safety, and the need for fire safety works to be urgently undertaken.

19. However, a number requested conditions be imposed or identified concerns which they requested be noted by the Tribunal if dispensation were given. These are summarised as follows:

• concerns regarding [NAME]’s failure to communicate with leaseholders about this application, to explain what was needed or why, or provide details of likely costs, • concerns regarding [NAME]’s failure to communicate and consult with leaseholders more generally about other issues in the Property (such as the disrepair to the rendering in existence since 2018), • that agreement to dispensation in relation to these works relating to fire should not absolve [NAME] from consulting leaseholders about other major works in future, • agreement to dispensation should not be treated as acceptance of liability for costs or the reasonableness of any works (and in particular the Respondents’ rights under s27A of the 1985 Act and the Building Safety Act 2022).

20. The first respondent ([RESPONDENT]) applied for an order under s20C of the 1985 Act for the costs of the application for dispensation not to be added to the service charge.

21. In relation to the waking watch, there is no obligation to consult leaseholders. This is because the duty to consult only applies to ‘qualifying works’ or a ‘qualifying long term agreement’. These are defined in s20ZA(2) as ‘works on a building or any other premises’ and ‘an agreement entered into by or on behalf of the landlord… for a term of more than twelve months’ (respectively). The Upper Tribunal in Holding and Management (Soltaire) limited v leaseholders of [ADDRESS] [2023] UKUT 174 (LC) has confirmed that a waking watch does not come within the definition of qualifying works.

22. However, any question as to the reasonableness of the costs of the waking watch and/or whether such costs come within the scope of their service charge obligations (as defined by the lease) are matters that can be considered by the Tribunal, but only if an application under s27A of the 1985 Act is made.

23. In relation to the other matters for which dispensation is sought (the installation of the L1 fire alarm system and commissioning of a FRAEW survey) the Tribunal notes the following identified in the fire risk assessment (FRA) conducted by [NAME] on 4 July 2025 on behalf of [COMPANY].

24. His report indicates that a previous FRA for the Property carried out by [NAME] on 12 January 2024 may have been inadequate. He said concerns have been raised about the adequacy of works carried out by [NAME] and that [NAME] has been suspended from the Institute of Fire Engineers.

25. From a non-invasive survey inspection Mr [NAME] raised a number of concerns at the Property including the following:

• an inadequate fire detection and warning system and issues with smoke detectors • inadequate or damaged horizontal cavity barriers behind the façade and around windows and doors • potential damage to the wooden structural beams due to the damaged façade • inadequate compartmentation and fire stopping • uncontrolled combustibles observed in escape routes • issues regarding adequacy or damage to fire doors • issues identified with lighting in escape routes and the ability to open the fire exit.

26. The report at pages 23 to 54 concludes with a list of the matters requiring attention – identifying those that are greatest priority due to a high risk to residents. These priority 1 actions include the upgrading of the fire alarm system to an L1 system and undertaking a detailed FRAEW survey to identify remedial works required to the external walls given the issues identified under the façade. Until the fire alarm system had been installed and any remediation works identified in the FRAEW survey were completed, Mr [NAME] said a waking watch was required.

27. In their objections to the application the Respondents have not identified any prejudice they have suffered as a consequence of not being consulted about the installation of an upgraded fire detection and alarm system or the need for the FRAEW survey. The Respondents have not set out what they would have said had they been consulted. However, they had clearly been provided with only very limited information.

28. The Applicant confirmed in its grounds for seeking dispensation that by the date of application it had already given instructions regarding the installation of the fire alarm system and FRAEW survey. However, no details have been provided as to who had been instructed or the likely cost.

29. As leaseholders will have the ability to challenge whether works or services are of a reasonable standard and whether costs were reasonably incurred by making an application under s27A and 19 of the 1985 Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that lack of information at this stage in relation to the costs of installing an upgraded alarm system and the costs associated with the commissioning of the FRAEW survey would not in itself amount to prejudice to the Respondents.

30. Having considered the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that in principle it was reasonable for dispensation to be given in relation to the costs of the installation of an upgraded L1 fire alarm system and the commissioning of the FRAEW survey. They were identified as necessary and urgent. Delay doing so in order that a formal consultation was undertaken would not only have prolonged risks to the residents but would have also increased costs due

to the employment of the waking watch, and no prejudice to the leaseholders had been demonstrated.

Should dispensation be granted conditionally or unconditionally?

31. The first respondent, [RESPONDENT], seeks an order under s20C for the costs of this application not to be added to the service charge. The Tribunal is satisfied such an order is not necessary as it considers it to be a reasonable condition that should attach to the grant of dispensation.

32. The individual respondents to the application raised common issues regarding the lack of information provided by [NAME] and concerns about adding future costs without consultation. It is not reasonable for the Tribunal to make any condition regarding matters that may happen in future. It would not be reasonable to prohibit a further application for dispensation from being made if, for example, future works are required on an urgent basis for the health and safety of residents. However, [NAME] should understand and comply with its obligations to consult with leaseholders. As the Supreme Court confirmed, the consultation requirements are imposed by law to ensure leaseholders are protected from paying for inappropriate works or from paying more than would be appropriate. Leaseholders also have rights in relation to the provision of other information which [NAME] should also adhere to.

33. In the light of the comments made by Mr [NAME] regarding the FRA carried out by [COMPANY] as recently as 12 January 2024, the Tribunal considers it to be a reasonable condition of this grant of dispensation for the leaseholders to be provided with both a copy of that report, the report of Mr [NAME] of 4 July 2025 (if it has not already been provided to them) as well as a copy of the FRAEW survey report currently being commissioned.

Decision

34. The Tribunal is satisfied for the reasons set out above that it is reasonable to grant dispensation under s20ZA of the 1985 Act from the s20 consultation requirements in respect of the fire alarm works and the commissioning of the FRAEW survey, and that it is reasonable for that dispensation to be on condition that (a) none of the Applicant’s costs of this application for dispensation (including [NAME]’s costs) are to be recovered from the leaseholders through the service charge, (d) a copy of reports of the fire risk assessments conducted on 12 January 2024 and 4 July 2025 are provided to the Respondents within 28 days, and (e) a copy of the FRAEW survey report is provided to the Respondents within 28 days of the date on which it is received by [NAME] or the date of this notice (if it has already been received)

35. Although the Tribunal has granted dispensation, it has not made any determination either as to whether the costs were reasonably incurred or whether services (such as the waking watch) or the works were of a reasonable standard. Nor has it made a determination as to whether the costs are recoverable from the leaseholders though the service charge. Those are matters which the Tribunal may consider but only if an application is made to the Tribunal under s27A and 19 of the 1985 Act.

Signed: Judge R Cooper 17 October 2025

Note: Appeals

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] that has been dealing with the case.

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, and should be sent by email to [EMAIL].

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.