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 make urgent repairs to a lift without consulting the tenants because of safety concerns. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent entrapment and ensure the safety of elderly and disabled residents.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may receive dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for urgent repairs.

Topics

urgent repairsdispensation from consultation

Provisions

Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant a landlord dispensation from statutory consultation requirements if the tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to obligations set by regulations made by the Secretary of State, which can include providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, and considering tenants' observations.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation for urgent lift repairs without consulting tenants.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to the landlord for urgent lift repairs necessitated by a safety concern, bypassing statutory consultation requirements with tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BJ/LDC/2022/0127 Landlord /Applicant : [redacted] : 42 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Representative : [COMPANY] (Mr [COUNSEL]) Tenants/ Respondents : [redacted] on the Schedule below Representatives : None Tribunal :

Mr [NAME] Ms [NAME] of Decision : 25 September 2022

DECISION

Decision 1. Dispensation in respect of costs to carry out urgent lift repairs necessitated by the Allianz report of 15 December 2021 (see below) is GRANTED UNCONDITIONALLY. Reasons Background 1. On 30 May 2022, the applicant applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of repairs which have been carried out to remedy an urgent disrepair in respect of a lift at the property. This was said to be a health and safety requirement and needed to prevent entrapment; the lift was used by the elderly disabled and those with children. Repairs were therefore urgent.

2 2. On 20 July 2022, the Tribunal set the case down for determination by written representations unless any party objected, which none did. The applicant was directed to serve the application on the respondents and give publicity within the common parts of the property. This was confirmed by email. The respondents were invited to serve objections if they so wished, using a proforma form appended to the directions. The Applicants’ Case 3. The lift safety issues came to light following a recent engineering insurance inspection. Immediate action was required. The lift contractor was asked to consider the report and asked to identify works falling within insurance cover and those for which the landlord would be responsible and for which lessees would need to contribute. A report from Allianz dated 15 December 2021 was included which supported the Applicants case.

4. A stage 1 consultation letter was sent to leaseholders on 5 May 2022.

5. A statement of estimates was sent to leaseholders dated 19 July 2022 with alternative quotes from [NAME] of £3,954.99 and [RESPONDENT] of £5,776.80 both inclusive of VAT. The Tenants/Respondents’ case 6. None of the tenants/respondents responded to the application. The Law

7. Section 20ZA is set out in the appendix to this decision. The Tribunal has discretion to grant dispensation when it considers it reasonable to do so. In addition, the Supreme Court Judgment in [COMPANY] v [NAME] and Others [2013] UKSC 14 empowers the Tribunal to grant dispensation on terms or subject to conditions. Findings 8. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has acted reasonably in dealing with this urgent disrepair and it notes that that none of the tenants have objected to the application. A stage 1 consultation and statement of estimates was served on the lessees. The applicant informed the Tribunal that the successful tenderer was [NAME] (see above), being the lowest estimate .The Tribunal has identified no prejudice suffered by the respondents. Therefore dispensation under section 20ZA is granted unconditionally in respect of the consultation requirements for these works.

3 9. However, this decision has no bearing on the question of the reasonableness of costs to be incurred or their payability. The Tribunal makes no findings in relation to those matters.

[NAME]

25 September 2022

Schedule of [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] OF APPEAL

• The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its decisions by virtue of the rule 36 (2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below.

• If a party wishes to appeal against 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.

• 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

4 number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

Appendix

Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (1)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. (2)In section 20 and this section— “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months. (3)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a)if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b)in any circumstances so prescribed. (4)In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5)Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord— (a)to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants’ association representing them, (b)to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c)to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d)to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and

5 (e)to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements. (6)Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a)may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b)may make different provision for different purposes. (7)Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

📊 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 deemed urgent and necessary.
  • No prejudice has been caused to leaseholders.
  • The landlord reasonably seeks dispensation.
  • There are no objections from tenants.
  • The works pose a health and safety risk.

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 to the landlord for urgent lift repairs without consulting the tenants.

Who was involved?

The landlord requested dispensation for urgent repairs, while the tenants did not respond to the application.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation because the repairs were urgent and necessary for health and safety reasons.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The court applied Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency and necessity of the repairs due to safety concerns.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be able to seek dispensation for urgent repairs if they can demonstrate the necessity and urgency of the work.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as an engineering insurance inspection report and estimates from contractors were considered important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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

It is recommended to seek 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.