First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Works
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent lift repairs due to water damage. The decision was made to protect elderly and disabled residents living in the building.
⚖️ Legal holding
An applicant is entitled to dispensation from consultation under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and there is no substantive prejudice to a person.
📖 What the law says
Under this section, a tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to obligations set by the Secretary of State through regulations, which might include providing details of proposed works to tenants, obtaining estimates, and considering tenants' observations.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent lift works.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation to the applicant under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1. The works were deemed urgent due to water ingress affecting the lift pit and impacting vulnerable residents.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/LDC/2025/0753 Property : [APPELLANT], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] : Wayne & Silver Management Agent Respondent : [redacted] Representative : N/A Type of application : Dispensation from consultation – s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 16 September 2025
DECISION
2 Decision of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought by the
applicant in respect of urgent modernisation of the lift and associated
works to remedy the ingress of water to the lift pit. _____________________________________________________ The application 1. This is an application pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant
Act 1985 in which the applicant seeks dispensation from consultation in
respect of urgent lift works. The background 2. The property which is the subject of this application is a purpose built
block of 9 flats on 5 floors with lift. 3. The works for which dispensation is sought relate to the modernisation
of the lift which have become urgent due to the breakdown of the existing
lift. In addition, remedial tanking works to the pit shaft are required due
to ongoing water ingress within the pit at the base of the lift shaft. The
water ingress is said to have contributed to the deterioration and
subsequent breakdown of the lift. 4. The applicant held a meeting with [NAME] on 17 June 2025 at which
the lift works and this application were discussed. Several quotes were
obtained for the works although a full s.20 consultation was not carried
out. 5. The works are said to be urgent due to there being a number of elderly
and other vulnerable occupiers including a number of wheelchair users. The tribunal’s decision 6. The tribunal grants the applicant the dispensation from consultation sought in respect of the lift and associated works. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 7. As neither party requested an oral hearing this application was determined on the documents provided by the applicant. This comprised of 2 unpaginated bundles of documents, one comprising 54 digital pages and the other 118 digital pages. These included a witness statement from the applicant’s managing agent.
3 8. The tribunal is satisfied that all [NAME] were notified of this application and provided with an opportunity to raise an objection to it if they wished to do so. Neither the respondent nor the tribunal received any objections. Further, the applicant informed the tribunal that ‘All nine [NAME] have confirmed that they are content to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements in respect of the proposed lift modernisation works.’ (email sent 02 September 2025 to the tribunal).
9. Although this application does not deal with the reasonableness of the cost of the works, the tribunal noted the various quotes obtained by the applicant in respect of lift-pit sealing and waterproof tanking insulation and modernisation works, in an effort to achieve the best price for the required works.
10. The tribunal accepts the urgent nature of the works in respect of addressing the water ingress and the subsequent replacement of the lift at the same time. In the absence of any objection by any [NAME] or demonstration of any substantive prejudice caused by the lack of consultation, the tribunal considers it reasonable to grant the dispensation from consultation sought; [COMPANY] v Benson & others [2013] UKSC 14 & [2013] UKSC 54.
Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 16 September 2025
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 application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The application should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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.
4 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 10 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Financial Penalty to £500
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reduces Tenant's Liability for Litigation Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Successfully Acquires Right to Manage Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Granted Right to Manage Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Granted Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Repairs
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 tribunal granted dispensation because the lift modernization and water ingress works were urgent.
- The works were urgent because the existing lift had broken down.
- Remedial tanking works to the pit shaft were needed due to ongoing water ingress, which contributed to the lift's deterioration.
- The works were urgent because there were elderly, vulnerable occupiers, including wheelchair users, in the building.
- All leaseholders were notified of the application and had a chance to object, but none did.
- The leaseholders confirmed they were content to waive the statutory consultation requirements.
- The tribunal found no substantive prejudice was caused by the lack of consultation.
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 works.
Who was involved?
The landlord and leaseholders were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and necessary to address water damage affecting the lift.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The court applied s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The urgency of the works and the need to protect vulnerable residents was the most important argument.
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 might also be able to bypass the usual consultation process if their works are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Quotes for the works and confirmation from leaseholders that they were content with the dispensation mattered.
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 always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.
