First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This decision was made because the landlord showed that it was reasonable to do so and that there would be no significant harm to the leaseholders.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be dispensed from the consultation requirements under Section 20ZA if it is reasonable to do so.
📖 What the law says
Under this section, a tribunal can decide to waive consultation requirements related to certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, finding no relevant prejudice to the leaseholders. The decision was made by Mr J A Platt FRICS and Mr W Reynolds MRICS on 27 June 2022.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : MAN/00BY/LDC/2022/0006
Property : [APPELLANT], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
[NAME]
Respondent: [redacted] of [APPELLANT] of application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 [POSTCODE]
Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] (Chairman) [NAME] W Reynolds MRICS
Date of decision : 27 June 2022
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022
2 DECISION
Pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the Tribunal makes a determination to dispense with the requirement for the Applicant to consult with the Respondents on the procurement of insurance cover under a long-term agreement for three-years commencing 20 September 2021.
REASONS
The Application 1. The application (‘the Application’) was made on 18 January 2022 by the Applicant’s Representative. It seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’) in relation to the statutory consultation requirements prescribed by Section 20. The Applicant entered into a qualifying long-term agreement relating to the provision of insurance cover for [APPELLANT], with [NAME], commencing 20 September 2021. The policy provides cover for one year but automatically renews on each anniversary at a fixed cost over a three-year period. 2. [APPELLANT] is a purpose built scheme comprising 415 units, located within 13 separate blocks of flats. The Respondents are the leaseholders of the flats. The Applicant is a [COMPANY] landlord of whom all the Board of Directors are also leaseholders.
3. Directions were issued on 28 March 2022. The Applicant was directed to provide details of the Application to all Respondents. The Respondents were, thereafter, invited to notify the Tribunal if they opposed the application and, if so, provide a statement in response to the Application.
4. The Applicant’s Representative confirmed to the Tribunal on 11 April 2022 that the Directions had been complied with. No responses were received by the Tribunal from any Respondents opposing the application.
5. The Application detailed terms of the insurance cover, details of market testing undertaken by the broker, benefits of the cover, costs of the cover in total and to each individual leaseholder. The Application also detailed why it had not been possible to comply with the consultation requirements of Section 20 due to the [COMPANY] time within which the offer was available to be accepted by the Board of Directors (who are all leaseholders contributing to the costs of the cover). In view of there being no ‘active’ Respondents opposing the Application, it is not necessary to reproduce that information in any detail within this decision. The Law 6. Extracts from Sections 20 and 20ZA of the Act are appended.
7. The Tribunal considers the Supreme Court case of [COMPANY] v [NAME] and Others [2013] UKSC 14 (‘Daejan’) to be the leading case on dispensation. In Daejan Lord [NAME] stated that in deciding pursuant to
3 section 20ZA whether it is reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements, a tribunal should consider whether any relevant prejudice would be suffered by the leaseholders. Lord [NAME] stated that whilst the legal burden of proof rests throughout on the landlord, the factual burden of identifying some relevant prejudice that they would or might have suffered rested on the tenants. Determination 8. In this case, none of the Respondents have opposed the Application. The Tribunal finds therefore, that there is no relevant prejudice identified by any Respondent, suffered as a consequence of the Applicant’s decision not to follow the consultation requirements prescribed by Section 20 of the Act.
9. A decision on the issue of dispensation does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs resulting from any agreement are reasonably incurred or payable.
10. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal considers it reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements.
Accordingly, the Tribunal makes a determination under section 20ZA of the Act to dispense with the requirement to consult with the Respondents under Section 20, in relation to the procurement of insurance cover under a long-term agreement for three years commencing 20 September 2021.
[NAME] Tribunal Judge 27 June 2022
4 Annex: List of [COMPANY] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] K [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs D [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] R [NAME] Dr [NAME] R [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] S [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Jing Zhang & Ma [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J Husband Mrs [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] B [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] B [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] S [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss F [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss H [NAME] [NAME] A [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] A [NAME] [NAME] A [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] K [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] T [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME]
5 Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] N [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] S [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] R [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] K [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] T [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & K [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] M [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] T [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs & Mrs B & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] C [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] N [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] T [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] V [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] S [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] M [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] W Judge [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Zr [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] M [NAME] Mrs & Miss [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] K [NAME] Miss RL [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] Mrs [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]
6 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]) [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] (Deceased) [NAME] [NAME] M [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Miss K B & S J Roberts & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] L [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Miss [NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] V [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] K [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss K [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] A [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] E [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] D [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]
[NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]
[NAME] [NAME] D [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]
[NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]
[NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME]
[NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] [RESPONDENT]
7 Appendix
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 20
(Subsections (1) and (2):)
(1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are [COMPANY] in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either - (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) a tribunal.
(2) In this section 'relevant contribution', in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works under the agreement.
Section 20ZA
(Subsection (1))
(1) Where an application is made to a 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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Major Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Sewage Pump Replacement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Alarm Installation Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Proceed Without Consulting Leaseholders
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation From Consultation Requirements Due to Administ…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation From Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Major Works Consultation
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 can be dispensed from consultation if there is no relevant prejudice to the leaseholders.
- The landlord can be dispensed from consultation if the works are urgent and necessary for fire safety.
- The landlord can be dispensed from consultation if it is deemed reasonable to do so by the tribunal.
- The landlord can be dispensed from consultation if the leaseholders do not identify any relevant prejudice.
- The landlord can be dispensed from consultation if the situation lacks prejudice to the leaseholders and is considered reasonable.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors listed as all cases favored the landlord)
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 consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1.985.
Who was involved?
The case involved a landlord and various leaseholders of a property called City Quay.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements because none of the leaseholders opposed the application and there was no identified relevant prejudice.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically sections 20 and 20ZA, were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord had shown that it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements and that there would be no relevant prejudice to the leaseholders.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, this means that if they can show that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements and that there will be no relevant prejudice, they may be able to obtain a similar ruling.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence such as the terms of the insurance cover, details of market testing undertaken by the broker, and the costs of the cover were considered important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
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 legal disputes.
