VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided to allow the landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for necessary repairs. This decision was made after reviewing the a person and considering the safety concerns raised by the deteriorating masonry.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements under certain conditions.

Topics

tenancy disputesstatutory consultation requirements

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZAService Charges (Consultation) (England) 2003

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant permission to skip the consultation requirements for certain building works if it believes it is reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to inform tenants about proposed works or agreements, get estimates, consider tenant suggestions, and provide reasons for actions when necessary.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from the consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from the consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for works addressing deteriorating masonry external facade, costing in excess of £250 per flat. The decision was made following a remote paper determination where no representations were received from the respondents.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2025/0718 Property : 52-56 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [APPELLANT]

Respondents : [redacted] Miss [NAME] Mr [NAME] [COMPANY] [COMPANY] Ms [COUNSEL] :

None

Type of [NAME] :

For dispensation from the consultation requirements under Section 20ZA Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal :

Mr [APPELLANT] (Hons) LLM Property Law MA FRICS

Date of Decision : 22 July 2025

DECISION

This has been a remote paper determination, which has been consented to by the parties. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and no one requested same.

The documents the Tribunal were referred to were in a bundle of some 64 pages.

Decision

(1) The Tribunal determines that unconditional dispensation should be granted from the consultation requirements from Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) in respect of the property 52-56 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. (2) We make no determination as to the reasonableness of the costs of same, these being matters which can be considered, if necessary, under the provisions of s27A and s19 of the Act. The [NAME]

1. This [NAME] dated 24 April 2025, is made by [COMPANY] on behalf of the [COMPANY].

2. The [NAME] seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

3. The [NAME] is concerned solely with the question of what consultation if any should be given of the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the 1985 for works addressing deteriorating masonry external facade, costing in excess of £250 per flat. It is not concerned with the reasonableness or payability of any service charges which may arise. The Determination 4. A written [NAME] was made by [COMPANY]. The Tribunal considered the written bundle of 64 pages, in support of the [NAME]. Background The property

5. The Property is described in the [NAME] as “a block of 3 flats above a commercial unit. The building is older than 50 years. The block has 3 floors including a basement.” 6. The [NAME] is made for “qualifying works”. The Form notes under “Details of Dispensation”; specifically, “we were notified by [NAME] that the facia and soffit boards were showing signs of disrepair and were becoming dangerous. As a result, we instructed a contractor on an emergency basis to make good and prevent further damage and scaffolding was erected. Since the scaffolding was erected, further safety works have been identified.” 7. The Directions dated 30 May 2025, provided for the tribunal to be responsible for serving a copy of the [NAME] and directions. This was completed on 3 June 2025 8. Those who objected should make their objections known to the applicant and the tribunal by completing a Reply Form by 30 June 2025. No representations were received.

9. The Landlord may by the 7 July 2025 provide a brief reply to any [NAME] who opposes the [NAME].

10. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements of Section 20 of the 1985 Act. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. Documents 11. The Tribunal has had recourse to the Bundle of 64 pages which includes the [NAME] form, Directions, quotations and a copy of a specimen lease. The Tribunal’s decision 12. The Tribunal grants dispensation under Section 20 ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation) (England) 2003 for the works set out in the [NAME].

13. We are, aware of the judgment in [COMPANY] v [NAME] [2013] UKSC 14. The [NAME] for dispensation is not challenged.

14. The Supreme Court (Lord [NAME] at para 50) accepted that there must be real prejudice to the tenants. Indeed, the Respondents do not oppose the [NAME]. It is accepted that we have the power to grant dispensation on such terms as we think fit. However, the Landlord is entitled to decide the identity of the contractors who carry out the work, when they are done, by whom and the amount. The safety net for the Respondents is to be found in Sections 19 and 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

15.

Accordingly, we find that unconditional dispensation should be granted.

16. Our decision is in respect of the dispensation from the provisions of s20 of the Act only. It is open to the [NAME] or others to apply under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 27A, should there be concerns over the payability and reasonableness of the service charge, these may include concerns over necessity, quality of work and its cost. [NAME] [NAME]: [NAME] [NAME]

22 July 2025

ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-Tier at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

3. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request to 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (ie give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] 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

  • The landlord shows that compliance with the statutory consultation requirements would cause real prejudice to tenants.
  • The landlord demonstrates that the works are necessary for urgent repairs or health and safety reasons.
  • The landlord proves that there is no real prejudice to tenants due to the works.
  • The landlord provides evidence that the works are critical for safety.
  • The landlord establishes that the circumstances justify the dispensation from consultation requirements.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision allowed the landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for necessary repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, while the tenants did not object to the application.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the tenants did not object and the work was deemed necessary for safety reasons.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically Section 20ZA, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the need for emergency repairs to ensure safety.

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 consultation process if the work is necessary for safety reasons.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the deteriorating masonry and the need for emergency repairs was important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property disputes.

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.