VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements to carry out urgent repairs needed to ensure the safety of the building and its residents. The repairs were deemed necessary due to identified health and safety risks.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to a dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are necessary for the preservation of the building and the safety of the public.

Topics

tenancy disputeshealth and safety

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

Under this section, a tribunal can grant a request to skip certain consultation requirements related to building works or long-term agreements if the tribunal believes it is reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to consult with tenants or recognized tenants' associations before making changes.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted a dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 due to urgent health and safety risks.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted a dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to address health and safety risks. Judge F J Silverman presided over the case.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2020/0135 P:REMOTE Property : [NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : Mr [COUNSEL] Respondents : [redacted] application

Representative : Not represented Type of Application : [POSTCODE] Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Member : Judge F J Silverman MA [NAME] of paper consideration : 25 November 2020

Date of Decision : 25 November 2020

DECISION

REASONS

1. By an application made to the Tribunal on 26 August 2020 the Applicant seeks a determination of its application for dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by s. 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

2. Directions were issued by the Tribunal on 05 October 2020.

3. This matter was determined by a paper consideration P:REMOTE on 25 November 2020 at which the Tribunal considered the Applicant’s application and accompanying documents.

4. The Directions issued by the Tribunal had been sent by the Applicant to all Respondents asking them to respond and to indicate whether or not they opposed the application.

5. The Tribunal understands that [NAME] (the property) is a purpose built block of 40 flats within a central residential, commercial and entertainment location of Westminster. The date of construction is estimated as early 20th Century. The building is of typical brick construction with wooden framed windows, and a pitched slate roof. The soffits & fascia are constructed of original materials from the Edwardian period.

6. The Applicant states that the urgency of this case is that there is an identified Health & Safety Risk, due to the degradation of the roof fascia & soffits across the frontage of the property. There have been two cases where areas of weakened concrete or reinforced plaster have broken off from the structure above. This debris has the potential to cause serious harm to both life and property, in the street below. Currently, an area of the street pavement has been cordoned off, to prevent people walking under the

The Tribunal determines that it will exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 on the grounds that all tenants were notified of the application under s20ZA and urgent repair works are required to ensure the safety of the building its residents and the public.

affected area. The assumption is that the entire area of concrete or reinforced plaster may have deteriorated to a weakened state.

7. The Applicant therefore requests the Tribunal to grant a dispensation from compliance with the full requirements of the section in order to allow the works to proceed. It is understood, however, that the works were commenced some time ago and may currently be reaching their completion.

8. The Tribunal was not asked to inspect the property and in the context of the issues before it did not consider that an inspection of the property would be either necessary or proportionate.

9. The Applicant as freeholder has a repairing obligation in respect of the structure, exterior and common parts of the premises (including mains services). An example of the leases under which the Respondents hold their respective properties is set out at page 82 0f the bundle.

10. All the tenants were notified of the proposals and of this application. Copies of four tenant responses were included in the Applicant’s hearing bundle. Two considered that the costs of the works were too high and others suggested that the works should have been carried out earlier. None objected to the nature of the application itself.

11. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under s.20ZA of the Act. The wording of s.20ZA is significant. Subs. (1) provides:

“Where an application is made to a [leasehold valuation] 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” (emphasis added).

12. The Tribunal understands that the purposes of the consultation requirements is to ensure that leaseholders are given the fullest possible opportunity to make observations about expenditure of money for which they will in part be liable.

13. Having considered the submissions made by the Applicant the Tribunal is satisfied that the works carried out or to be carried out are necessary both for the preservation of the building and the safety of the public and that no undue prejudice will be caused to or suffered by any tenant by the grant of dispensation under s20ZA.

14. This determination does not affect the tenants’ rights to apply to the Tribunal challenging the payability or reasonableness of the service charges.

Judge F J Silverman as Chairman Date 25 November 2020

Note: Appeals

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 application by email to [EMAIL].

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application 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 the application 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 the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application 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 the application is seeking.

📊 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

  • Works are urgent and necessary for safety.
  • Dispensation from consultation requirements is granted if the works preserve the building and ensure public safety.
  • Landlords can recover reasonable costs related to lease investigations.
  • Tenants' rights to accurate service charge calculations are protected.
  • Properties must meet specific criteria for human habitation under certain systems.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • Properties are exempt from the right to buy if they are particularly suitable for elderly persons and were first let before 1 January 1990.
  • Properties must meet certain size requirements to be considered suitable for human habitation under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant a dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation because the works were necessary for the preservation of the building and the safety of the public.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the necessity of the repairs to ensure the safety of the building and its residents.

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 may also be able to obtain a dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are necessary for health and safety reasons.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the health and safety risks and the necessity of the repairs were important.

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 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.