VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent lift repairs in a multi-flat property. The repairs were considered necessary because elderly and children living there depend on the lift.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and no objections are raised.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent repairslift maintenance

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and outlines the types of consultation requirements that can be waived.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for urgent lift repairs in a multi-flat property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for urgent lift repairs in a multi-flat property, citing the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The works were deemed urgent due to vulnerable residents relying on lift access.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2024/0188 Property : 121 St. George’s Square, London [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : [NAME] Respondents : [redacted] [NAME] : N/A Type of [NAME] : Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – dispensation with consultation Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 16 September 2024

DECISION

2 The tribunal’s decision 1. The tribunal determines it is appropriate to grant the dispensation from

the statutory consultation, sought by the applicant in respect of lift repair

works including the replacement of emergency lighting and batteries in

the lift at a cost of £3,580.14 including VAT. _____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 2. This is an [NAME] by the applicant landlord of the premises situate

at 121, St. George’s Square, London [POSTCODE] (‘the property’) seeking

statutory dispensation from statutory consultation in respect of lift

repair works including the replacement of emergency lighting and

batteries in the lift at a cost of £3,580.14 including VAT. The property

comprises a Victorian building consisting of six flats. The works were

said to be urgent due to vulnerable people and children residing on the

top floors who are reliant on lift access. 3. The required works were carried out and completed on 13 May 2024 by

the contractor [COMPANY] which included

replacement of the emergency lighting and batteries. The cost of the

works were invoiced to the applicant in the sum of £3,580.14 (including

VAT). The hearing 4. Neither party requested an oral hearing and the tribunal determined the

[NAME] upon the documents provided by the applicant. The

tribunal was provided with a digital bundle of 66 pages by the applicant

on which it relied. The applicant informed the tribunal the [NAME],

directions and a witness statement were ere displayed in a prominent

position for the attention of the [NAME]. 5. No objections to the [NAME] were received by the applicant or the

tribunal any of the [NAME] named in the [NAME]. The tribunal’s reasons 6. Having regard to the evidence relied upon by the applicant, the tribunal

determines the works required and were subsequently undertaken to the

lift, were urgent. As no objections to the [NAME] were made or any

prejudice identified the respondent [NAME], were the [NAME] to

be granted, the tribunal is satisfied the works required were urgent and

that it is appropriate to grant the dispensation from consultation sought

by the applicant pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act

3

1985; [APPELLANT] v Benson and others [2011] EWCA

Civ 38.

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 16 September 2024

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

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 by tenants.
  • The works are necessary to address a significant safety issue.
  • Failure to consult promptly would cause more prejudice than benefit.
  • The landlord complies with statutory requirements.

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 for urgent lift repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord of a multi-flat property and the leaseholders of the flats.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation because the works were urgent and no objections were raised.

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 urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from the leaseholders were the most important arguments.

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 might also be able to bypass the consultation process if their repairs are urgent and no objections are raised.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgency of the repairs and the display of the application for the attention of the leaseholders mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified 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.