VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent lift repairs in a multi-story building. The decision was made because the works were urgent and no a person objected.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and no objections are raised.

Topics

dispensation from consultation requirementsurgent works

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZAService Charges (Consultation etc)(England) Regulations 2003

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works 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 for urgent lift repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent lift repairs in a multi-story building. The works were deemed urgent due to the lift being out of service, and no leaseholders objected to the application.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME]) Case Reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2025/0636 [NAME] : 1 - 66 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] represented by [NAME], chartered surveyors/managing agent Respondents : [redacted] appendix to this decision

Type of [NAME] :

Dispensation from consultation requirements under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 20ZA Tribunal Member :

Judge Professor R Percival

Venue : Remote paper determination Date of Decision : 27 May 2025

DECISION

2

Decisions of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal, pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), grants dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the works which are the subject of the [NAME]. Procedural 1. The landlord submitted an [NAME] for retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) and the regulations thereunder, dated 20 January 2025.

2. The Tribunal gave directions on 5 February 2025, which were amended on 5 March 2025. The directions provided for a form to be distributed to those who pay the service charge to allow them to object to or agree with the [NAME], and, if objecting, to provide such further material as they sought to rely on. The [NAME] and directions were required to be sent to the [NAME] and any sublessees, and to be displayed as a notice in the common parts of the [NAME]. The deadline for return of the forms, to the Applicant and the Tribunal, was 14 April 2025.

3. The Applicant confirmed that the relevant documentation had been sent to the [NAME] and displayed as required.

4. No response from any of the [NAME] has been received by the Tribunal. The [NAME] and the works 5. The [NAME] is a purpose-built block containing 66 flats, apparently of mid-century construction.

6. The work relates to a lift in the building. It involves replacing an old control panel, extensive re-wiring and the installation of (I assume) improved/compliant elements to the lift system.

7. The Applicant reports that the work was (at the time the [NAME] was made) scheduled to start on 20 January 2025 and to conclude by 30 March 2025, at a cost of £52,257.60 including VAT.

8. The Applicant submits that the works are urgent, as the lift was out of service, and required the works to be brought back into service. I assume there were safety and/or operational reasons for the lift being

3 out of service, although they are not specified in the [NAME] or the witness statement from the [NAME] manager. Determination 9. The relevant statutory provisions are sections 20 and 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1983, and the Service Charges (Consultation etc)(England) Regulations 2003. They may be consulted at the following URLs respectively: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 1985/70 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1987/contents/made 10. The Tribunal is concerned solely with an [NAME] under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with the consultation requirements under section 20 and the regulations.

11. The case for urgency made in the [NAME] is somewhat thin, in that it amounts to an assertion that the works are urgent to allow lift access to the residents. But I can see from Google Maps Streetview facility that it is a building of six or seven stories. Although the [NAME] does not specify how many lifts there are in the building, and if there are more than one, how this affects access, I am prepared to infer that access to at least some of the flats on the upper floors must be seriously compromised by the absence of the lift.

Accordingly, I accept that the case for urgency is made out.

12. But in any event, no response has been received from any of the [NAME] objecting to the [NAME] by the Tribunal. The directions required any objecting leaseholder or sub-lessee to provide the form to both the Tribunal and the Applicant. The directions did not require the Applicant to notify the Tribunal if it received an objection form, but in any event, it has not, of its own volition, indicated that it had received any.

13. It is therefore apparent that none of the [NAME] have sought to claim any prejudice as a result of the consultation requirements not having been satisfied. Where that is the case, the Tribunal must, quite apart from any question of urgency, allow the [NAME]: [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] 1 WLR 854.

14. This [NAME] relates solely to the granting of dispensation. If the [NAME] consider the cost of the works to be excessive or the quality of the workmanship poor, or if costs sought to be recovered through the service charge are otherwise not reasonably incurred, then it is open to them to apply to the Tribunal for a determination of those issues under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

4 Rights of appeal 15. 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 London regional office.

16. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

17. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, the [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 these reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

18. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, give the date, the [NAME] and the case number; state the grounds of appeal; and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.

Name: Judge Prof Richard Percival Date: 27 May 2025

5 APPENDIX: THE RESPONDENT [NAME]

[NAME] 1 [NAME] 2 [NAME] 3 [COMPANY] 4 [NAME] 5 [NAME] 6 The Lessee ([NAME] [NAME]) Flat 7 [NAME] 8 [NAME] 9 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 10 [NAME] 11 [NAME] 12 T Greenwell Esq Flat 12a Miss J [NAME] 14 [NAME] [NAME] 15 [NAME] 16 [NAME] [NAME] 17 [NAME] 18 [NAME] [NAME] 19 Miss F [NAME] 20 [NAME] 21 [NAME] 22 [NAME] 23 [NAME] 24 [NAME] 25 Ms [NAME] & [NAME] 26 [NAME] 27 [NAME] [NAME] 28 [NAME] 29 [NAME] [NAME] 30 Miss S [NAME] 31 [NAME] [NAME] 32 [NAME] 33 [NAME] 34 [NAME] 35 [NAME] J [NAME] 36 [NAME] 37 [NAME] 38 [NAME] 39

6 [NAME] 40 [NAME] 41 [NAME] [NAME] 42 [NAME] [NAME] 43 [NAME] 44 [NAME] 45 [NAME] and [NAME] 46 Miss G Sale Flat 47 [COMPANY] 48 [NAME] & [NAME] 49 [NAME] 50 [NAME] 51 [NAME] 52 [NAME] 53 [COMPANY] 54 [NAME] & [NAME] 55 [NAME] 56 [NAME] 57 [NAME] 58 [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] 59 [NAME] 60 [NAME] M Petrie & [NAME] 61 [NAME] [NAME] 62 [NAME] B [NAME] and [NAME] 63 [NAME] 64 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 65 [NAME] [NAME] 66

📊 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 leaseholder objects.
  • The application is made under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  • Dispensation is sought under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  • The Tribunal grants dispensation when there are no objections.

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 consultation requirements for urgent lift repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the leaseholders of a multi-story building.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and no leaseholders objected.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA, and the Service Charges (Consultation etc)(England) Regulations 2003.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the works were urgent and no leaseholders objected to the application.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also seek dispensation if their works are urgent and no objections are raised.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Documentation showing the urgency of the works and confirmation that no leaseholders objected.

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 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.