AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·16 September 2019

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process with tenants because the work to replace a broken warden call system was deemed urgent and necessary.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary.

Topics

tenancy disputesurgent works

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 dispensation from consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to obligations placed on landlords to consult tenants before undertaking certain works or entering into long-term agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent works to a warden call system.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent works to a warden call system, finding the works to be urgent and necessary.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

CHI/00HN/LDC/2019/0063

Property

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant

[redacted]

---

Respondents

[redacted]

Representative

---

Type of Application

To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works

Tribunal Member(s)

Judge P J Barber

Date and Venue of Hearing

Determination on Papers

Date of Decision

12 September 2019

DECISION

2 The Application

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 explained that the warden call system requires replacement as the existing system has broken and is beyond repair.

3. The Application for dispensation was received on 12 August 2019.

4. On 14 August 2019 the Tribunal directed the Respondents to provide a response to the Application by 27 August 2019 by completing a form indicating whether they agreed or disagreed with the application and whether they were content for the case to be heard on the papers.

5. The Applicant served the Tribunal with a hearing bundle of documents on 6 September 2019. . Determination

6. The Tribunal is satisfied from the application and the documents that the works to the warden call system are urgent and necessary. The Tribunal received responses from none of the leaseholders in regard to the Application.

7. The Tribunal, therefore, dispenses with the consultation requirements in respect of the proposed works to the warden call system.

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

9. The Tribunal asks the Applicant to inform the leaseholders of this decision by way of noticeboard or other forms of communication.

Judge P J Barber 12 September 2019

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 to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

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:

Allowed12 cases

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 landlord proves the necessity and urgency of the works.
The works are deemed essential for the property's safety or functionality.
The landlord follows any available procedures for urgent works as closely as possible.

❌ Tends to be rejected

(No factors identified that went against the claimant in these cases.)

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 the consultation requirements for urgent works to a warden call system.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of a residential property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and necessary.

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 urgency and necessity of the works 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 works are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing the urgency and necessity of the works was likely considered.

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.