First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation From Consultation Requirements

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

HAV/43UE/LDC/2026/0064

Property

: Flats 1, 3 and 5 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] : [COUNSEL] [COMPANY]

Respondents

: [redacted] [NAME] 2 [NAME] and [NAME] 3 [NAME] 4

Interested Party

:

[NAME] [NAME] of Flat 1

Type of Application

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

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Tribunal Judge H Lumby

Date of Decision

:

29 May 2026

DECISION

2 Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal grants the application for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (Section 20ZA of the same Act) in relation to repair works carried out by [COMPANY] between February and April 2022 at the Property. This dispensation is conditional on no further costs in relation to those works and no costs incurred by the Applicants in making this application being recharged to any past, present or future [NAME] of the Property directly or indirectly including by way of service charge or administration charge. The background to 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. This application was received on 13 April 2026.

2. The Property is described as a commercial ground/basement unit at 3 and [ADDRESS] and four residential flats held on long leaseholds at [ADDRESS].

3. The Applicant is the freeholder of the Property with responsibility to the [NAME] for the provision of services. The Respondents comprise the [NAME]. The Applicant notes that Flat 1 was acquired by Ms [APPELLANT] around February 2026 with the transfer awaiting registration at the Land Registry; the vendor of Flat 1, Ms [NAME], has been joined as an Interested Party. There are current proceedings relating to the service charges and Flat 1 with Ms [NAME], case number HAV/43UE/LSC/2025/0794/IH.

4. The application relates to 12 items of works identified as qualifying works in a survey from [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] (Chartered Building Surveyors) on 3 November 2020. These included repairing the bay roof, gutters and cracked intel as well as repointing copings of the roof and around windows. In addition, a structural survey report was obtained from Baxter Glaysher Consulting on 5 May 2021 in respect of cracked brickwork at the first floor level. The report also recommended repointing. The applicant obtained a quote from [APPELLANT] to complete these works on 14 November 2021. [COMPANY] quoted £22,585 plus VAT. The works commenced in February 2022 and were completed by the end of April 2022.

5. The Applicant contends that it carried out a consultation by providing the [NAME] with information as it went along but accepts it did not invite nominations or written observations. The Applicant has therefore applied for dispensation instead, contending that no relevant prejudice has been suffered by any of the [NAME].

3 6. The Applicant has confirmed that no objections have been received from the Respondents. Ms [NAME] had objected but subsequently withdrew that objection.

7. By Directions of the Tribunal dated 24 April 2026 it was decided that the application be determined without a hearing, by way of a paper case. No objections have been received to this approach. The Tribunal has reviewed the documentation provided and is satisfied that it remains suitable for a paper determination.

8. The Tribunal did not inspect the Property as it considered the documentation and information before it in the set of documents prepared by the Applicant enabled the Tribunal to proceed with this determination.

9. This has been a paper determination which has not been objected to by the parties. The documents that were referred to are the Applicant’s application, a witness statement from the Applicant’s representative and the Tribunal’s Directions dated 24 April 2026, the contents of which have been recorded.

The issues

10. This decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying works. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs are payable or reasonable. If a Lessee wishes to challenge the payability or reasonableness of those costs as service charges, including the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.

Law 11. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) (“the 1985 Act”) and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 require a landlord planning to undertake major works, where a [NAME] will be required to contribute over £250 towards those works, to consult the [NAME] in a specified form.

12. Should a landlord not comply with the correct consultation procedure, it is possible to obtain dispensation from compliance with these requirements by an application such as this one before the Tribunal. Essentially the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.

13. The Applicant seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act from all the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by section 20 of the 1985 Act.

4 14. Section 20ZA relates to consultation requirements and provides as follows:

“(1) 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.

(2) In section 20 and this section— “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months. …. (4) In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord— (a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants’ association representing them, (b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c) to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements.

Applicable test 15. In the case of [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, by a majority decision (3-2), the Supreme Court considered the dispensation provisions and set out guidelines as to how they should be applied.

16. The Supreme Court came to the following conclusions:

a. The correct legal test on an application to the Tribunal for dispensation is: 

“Would the flat owners suffer any relevant prejudice, and if so, what relevant prejudice, as a result of the landlord’s failure to comply with the requirements?”

5 b. The purpose of the consultation procedure is to ensure [NAME] are protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than would be appropriate.

c. In considering applications for dispensation the Tribunal should focus on whether the [NAME] were prejudiced in either respect by the landlord’s failure to comply. d. The Tribunal has the power to grant dispensation on appropriate terms and can impose conditions. e. The factual burden of identifying some “relevant prejudice” is on the [NAME]. Once they have shown a credible case for prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it. f. The onus is on the [NAME] to establish: i. what steps they would have taken had the breach not happened and ii in what way their rights under (b) above have been prejudiced as a consequence

17. Accordingly, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was any “relevant prejudice” that may have arisen out of the conduct of the Applicant and whether it was reasonable for the Tribunal to grant dispensation following the guidance set out above.

Consideration 18. Having read the evidence and submissions from the Applicant and having considered all of the documents and grounds for making the application provided by the Applicant, the Tribunal determines the dispensation issues as follows.

19. The Tribunal has not been asked to determine whether a statutorily compliant consultation has been carried out by the Applicant, although the facts that shortcomings are acknowledged and the application has been made are both significant indications of potential shortcomings. [NAME], the test for it was whether the Respondents have suffered any relevant prejudice, and if so, what relevant prejudice, as a result of that lack of consultation by the landlord. In doing so, it needed to focus on whether the [NAME] have been prejudiced by paying for inappropriate works or paying an inappropriate amount as a result of the lack of consultation.

20. The Applicant has identified no urgency meaning that consultation should have been curtailed or dispensed with for the repair works carried out by [COMPANY] between February and April 2022

6 at the Property. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal considers that the application has been made because a potentially flawed process was followed.

21. The Tribunal is of the view that, taking into account that there have been no objections to this application from the Respondents, it could not find prejudice to any of the [NAME] by the granting of dispensation relating to repair works carried out by [COMPANY] between February and April 2022 at the Property.

22. As a result, the Tribunal believes that it is reasonable to allow dispensation in relation to the subject matter of the application.

23. The Tribunal considered whether the dispensation should be granted subject to any conditions. Ms [NAME] agreed to the application on the basis that all costs in relation to the works had already been paid by the [NAME] and there would be no further costs. The Tribunal agrees with this position and considers that the only potential further costs are likely to be those related to this application. As the application has been necessitated by a potentially flawed process with no fault by any past, present or future [NAME], it is unreasonable that they should be expected to contribute towards the application. It therefore concludes that the dispensation should be made subject to a condition that no [NAME] has to pay anything further towards the works or the application. This will not affect Ms [NAME] separate case.

24. Accordingly, the Tribunal grants the Applicant’s application for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to repair works carried out by [APPELLANT] between February and April 2022 at the Property.

25. This dispensation is conditional on no further costs in relation to those works and no costs incurred by the Applicants in making this application being recharged to any past, present or future [NAME] of the Property directly or indirectly including by way of service charge or administration charge.

26. The Applicant shall place a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on dispensation together with an explanation of the [NAME]’ appeal rights on its website (if any) within 7 days of receipt and shall maintain it there for at least 3 months, with a sufficiently prominent link to both on its home page. It should also be posted in a prominent position in the communal areas. In this way, any Respondents who have not returned the reply form may view the Tribunal’s eventual decision on dispensation and their appeal rights.

7 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.