First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works at Mornington Mansions

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

HAV/00ML/LDC/2025/0767

Property

:

[APPELLANT], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[NAME]

Respondent: [redacted]

:

N/A

Type of Application

:

To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal

:

Judge R Cooper

Hearing Centre

:

Paper determination

Date of Decision

:

13 January 2026

DECISION

Summary The Applicant’s application for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements pursuant to s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is granted without condition.

This dispensation does not affect the Respondents’ rights to make an application to the Tribunal as to the reasonableness or

2 payability of the service charge under sections 27A and 19 of the 1985 Act.

The application 1. On 27 November 2025 the Tribunal received an application from [NAME] on behalf of [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] (‘the Applicant’). [NAME] are the managing agents for the Applicant. The respondents to the application are [RESPONDENT] whose details are provided in the Appendix to this application (‘the Respondents’).

2. The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’) from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act in respect of qualifying works required to replace the lead cavity tray above the window of Flat 2, one of the 15 flats at [APPELLANT], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (‘[NAME]’). [NAME] is described as an Art Deco purpose-built block of flats comprising 15 flats with three entrances.

3. The Applicant seeks dispensation on the grounds that the works were urgently required as scaffolding was already in situ, the damp needed to be resolved, and the building made watertight as there was currently a hole in the wall caused in carrying out investigations as to the cause of the damp.

4. Directions were given by a legal officer on 8 December 2025. These included directions requiring the Applicant to serve a copy of the application and response form on the Respondents, and for the Respondents to notify the Tribunal if they objected to the application. Directions were also given about the procedures that needed to be followed if objections were received.

Consideration

5. The Tribunal considered the application, responses to the application, directions and the lease for Flat 15.

6. This was a determination made on the papers and there was no inspection. None of the parties requested a hearing or inspection, and it was not considered necessary for a fair determination of the issues.

Determination and reasons

7. Having considered the application and the limited evidence in support, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable for dispensation to be granted from the consultation requirements under s20 of the Landlord

3 and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’) and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 for the following reasons.

8. The purpose of the statutory consultation process under s20 of the 1985 Act is to ensure that [RESPONDENT] are given the fullest opportunity to comment on expenditure for which they will in due course be partly liable to pay through the service charge.

9. The relevant law relating to this application is s20ZA of the 1985 Act which allows the Tribunal to grant dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements if it is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. In considering the application I have borne in mind the principles set down by the Supreme Court in [APPELLANT] v [NAME] [2013] UKSC 14.

10. The Applicant says that works were required to replace the lead cavity tray above the window of Flat 2 now the rubble had been cleared.

11. The Applicant says the works were urgently required for three reasons. Firstly, to avoid unnecessary costs of erecting scaffolding for a second time. Scaffolding had been erected for a period of 6 weeks in order to investigate the cause of the damp in Flat 2 and would be in situ until 9 December 2025. Secondly, to remedy the damp in Flat 2, and thirdly to make the building watertight. There was currently a hole in the wall which could not be closed until the works were completed.

12. The works that were being carried out at the time of the application were estimated to be £7,657.10 for the works (including contingencies of £1,433), £390 including VAT for the Building Control fee together with [NAME]’s 5% fee plus VAT.

13. On 4 December 2025 the Applicant confirmed that 9 of the 15 [RESPONDENT] had agreed the application for dispensation. No objections to the application were received by the Tribunal by the 2 January 2026. On 17 January 2026 the Applicant sent email confirmation that no objections had been received.

14. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests the Respondents would be prejudiced by a failure of the Applicant to consult.

15. The Tribunal considers that delaying the works in order to comply with the consultation requirements would increase the potential costs. Scaffolding would need to be erected for a second time. In addition, [NAME] would remain open to the elements given the hole in the wall necessitated by the investigations carried out, which would not be closed until the work to replace the lead cavity tray was completed. This would

4 result in a risk of further water ingress. The works were limited in scope and were being carried out to resolve the damp problem in Flat 2.

16. In all the circumstances the Tribunal was satisfied it was reasonable to grant dispensation under s20ZA of the 1985.

17. The Tribunal considered whether to impose conditions on that grant of dispensation, but decided it was not appropriate given the limited nature of the proposed works.

Decision

18. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation from the s20 consultation requirements under s20ZA of the 1985 Act, and for that dispensation to be without condition.

19. Although the Tribunal has granted dispensation, the parties should note that in doing so it has made no determination as to either • the reasonableness of the works that have been carried out, • the reasonableness of the costs of those works or • whether the costs are payable by the Respondents though the service charges. Those are all matters which the Tribunal may consider, but a separate application would need to be made under sections 27A and 19 of the 1985 Act.

Note: Appeals

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 that 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, and should be sent by email to [EMAIL].

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.

5 Appendix

Respondents to the application

Flat 1 - Mrs [NAME] M [NAME] (Deceased)

Flat 2 – [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] 3 - [NAME] 4 - [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 5 - [NAME] & [NAME] 6 - [NAME] 7 - [NAME] 8 - Mr [NAME] & Ms [NAME] 9 and 11 - [COMPANY] 10 - [NAME] [NAME] 12 - [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] 14 - [NAME] & [NAME] 15 - [NAME] & [NAME] 16 - Ms [NAME]