VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to bypass consultation requirements for urgent fire safety works at a block of flats. This decision was made because non-compliant fire doors posed significant safety risks.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and pose significant safety risks.

Topics

fire safetyconsultation requirements

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 from consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements due to urgent fire safety concerns.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 due to urgent fire safety concerns at a block of flats. The decision was based on the significant safety risks posed by non-compliant fire doors.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Tribunal reference :

LON/00BH/LDC/2025/0666 Property :

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondents

Various lessees Representative :

Type of application:

Dispensation from consultation requirements

Tribunal members :

Venue : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of decision : 08 May 2025

DECISION © CROWN COPYRIGHT

1. This is an application made by Ms [NAME] of [ADDRESS] ([APPELLANT] (“the managing agents”) on behalf of the Applicant, its client.

2. The application is for dispensation from the consultation requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), pursuant to s.27ZA of the 1985 Act.

3. Section 20ZA(1) provides that: "Where an application is made to [the FTT] for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works …, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements." 4. [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] is a purpose built block of 16 flats situated in Chingford (“the building”).

5. Directions were given on 11 March 2025. Any lessees or sublessees who opposed the application were directed to inform the Tribunal by 08 April 2025. There are no such objections in the bundle provided.

6. In its application the Applicant says:

We are seeking dispensation from the consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 due to the urgent nature of the works. A fire door survey confirmed that all communal doors were noncompliant, posing a significant risk to the fire safety integrity of the building. Given this immediate safety concern, the Directors determined that the works needed to proceed without delay. While a Notice of Intention has been issued and multiple tenders were obtained to ensure cost-effectiveness, full consultation was not undertaken due to the urgency of the situation. Dispensation is therefore being sought to allow the necessary works to proceed without the risk of challenge.

7. As stated above, there has been no objection to the application for dispensation.

8. The cost of the works was £10,320.00 plus VAT which has been paid.

9. The leading authority on applications for dispensation is the Supreme Court’s decision in [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] HLR 2.

10. In that case the Supreme Court held that the main, indeed normally, the sole question for the Tribunal when considering how to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with s.20ZA(1) is the real prejudice to the tenants flowing from the landlord’s breach of the consultation requirements. The financial consequences for the landlord of not granting a dispensation is not a relevant factor. The Tribunal may grant dispensation on such conditions as it thinks fit: provided that any such conditions are appropriate in their nature and their effect.

11. There is no evidence before me of any prejudice and I am satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation.

12. This decision only relates to dispensation, not to the reasonableness of the work done or its costs. These can be challenged before the FTT if necessary in separate proceedings.

Name: Judge Brilliant:

Date: 08 May 2025

Rights of appeal

A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

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.

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.

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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application 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

  • The works are urgent.
  • No objections are raised.
  • The works are necessary for safety reasons.
  • There is no substantial prejudice to the respondents.
  • Emergency remediation works can be undertaken without prior consultation if they are urgent.

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 managing agents of a block of flats and various lessees.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the works were urgent and necessary for fire safety 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 seek dispensation if they have urgent safety concerns.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of non-compliant fire doors and the urgency of the works were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions 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 get legal advice from a solicitor for cases 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.