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 with tenants for urgent repairs to a passenger lift in a block of flats. The repairs were deemed essential and urgent, ensuring the safety of vulnerable a person.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consulting tenants about major works if the works are essential and urgent, and there is no risk of prejudice to the tenants.

Topics

tenancy disputesurgent repairsdispensation from consultation

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZALandlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant a request to waive consultation requirements with tenants regarding major works if the tribunal finds it 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 in a residential building.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord's application for dispensation from consulting tenants about major works, specifically the urgent repair of a life-critical passenger lift in a block of flats. The Tribunal found the repairs essential and urgent, with no risk of prejudice to the tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/00HY/LDC/2022/0034

Property

:

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[APPELLANT] Management

Respondents

:

[redacted]

Representative

:

-

Type of [NAME]

:

To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge Tildesley OBE

Date and Venue of Hearing

:

Determination on Papers

Date of Decision

:

26 May 2022

DECISION

2 [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act.

2. The Applicant states that the property is a purpose built block of 47 flats. The Applicant explains that urgent works are required to restore life critical passenger lift serving 47 flats with 44 vulnerable [NAME] who are dependent on the lift. The Applicant confirms that the Notice of Intent dated 24 February 2022 was served on all [NAME] along with a covering letter explaining that dispensation had been applied for under [POSTCODE] of the 1985 Act and that the costs of the works would be charged to the reserve fund in which there are sufficient funds to cover the costs of the repairs.

3. [NAME] for dispensation was received on 25 March 2022.

4. On 12 April 2022 the Tribunal directed the Applicant to serve [NAME] and directions on the [NAME] which was done on 19 April 2022

5. The Tribunal directed that [NAME] would be heard on the papers unless a party requested an oral hearing. No party made such a request.

6. The Tribunal required the [NAME] to return a pro-forma to the Tribunal and the Applicant by 3 May 2022 indicating whether they agreed or disagreed with [NAME].

7. [NAME] returned the pro-forma stating their agreement to [NAME]. No leaseholder objected to [NAME].

. Determination

8. The Tribunal is satisfied from [NAME] and the documents that the repairs to the passenger lift were essential and urgent particularly as forty four [NAME] relied on the lift to gain access to their property.

9. In view of the urgency of the works the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant did not have the time to carry out full consultation as required by section 20 of the 1985 Act. The Applicant, however, issued the notice of intention to carry out the works and explained that the costs of the works were funded from reserves. The Tribunal notes that all [NAME] who responded were in favour of [NAME].

10. The Tribunal is, therefore, satisfied that the [NAME] would suffer no relevant prejudice if dispensation from consultation was granted.

3

11. The Tribunal, therefore, dispenses with the consultation requirements in respect of the repair to the passenger lift.

12. The Tribunal’s decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the works. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of those works are reasonable or payable. If a leaseholder wishes to challenge the reasonableness of those costs, then a separate [NAME] under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.

13. The Tribunal directs the Applicant to inform the [NAME] of the Tribunal’s decision and to display the written decision on a noticeboard in the common areas.

4

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

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

2. [NAME] must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making [NAME] written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. [NAME] 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 [NAME] is seeking.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 described as urgent.
  • There is no evidence of prejudice to the tenants.
  • The works are deemed essential.
  • All responding leaseholders agree with the necessity of the works.
  • The landlord does not need to consult tenants if the conditions are met.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The service charges do not conform to the terms of the lease.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant the landlord dispensation from consulting tenants about major works, specifically the urgent repair of a passenger lift.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, while the tenants were consulted through a pro-forma response.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation because the repairs were essential and urgent, and there was no risk of prejudice to the tenants.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency and necessity of the repairs, especially considering the vulnerability of the residents who rely on the lift.

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 apply for dispensation if they can demonstrate the urgency and necessity of the repairs.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence included the application, the notice of intent, and responses from the tenants.

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 consult a solicitor for advice on how to proceed with 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.