First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process with a person for additional works on reinforced concrete balconies. This decision was made because the contractor was already on-site, making further consultation impractical.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be dispensed from consulting a person for additional works if the contractor is already on site and further consultation is not feasible.
📖 What the law says
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 20ZA allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements for certain works or agreements if it deems it reasonable to do so. The section defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and 'qualifying long term agreement' as an agreement lasting over twelve months. It also specifies that 'consultation requirements' refer to rules set by the Secretary of State.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for additional works on reinforced concrete balconies.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for additional works on reinforced concrete balconies at a property in London. The decision was based on the impracticability of further consultation due to the contractor's presence on-site.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2019/0121 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] application. Representative : In person Type of application : Application under S.20ZA Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 for dispensation from the requirements to consult in relation to Qualifying Works. Tribunal member(s) : [NAME] [NAME] and venue of determination : 16 September 2019 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 16 September 2019
DECISION
2
Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that it will exercise its discretion and grant dispensation from the requirements to consult [NAME] in relation to the additional works required to repair reinforced concrete balconies to the property. The application 1. The applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.
2. The application which is dated 6 August 2019 relates to additional works to reinforced concrete balconies at the premises that were discovered when works, which had already been the subject of a S.20 Consultation were commenced. The applicants say that when the works commenced the contractors carried out a ‘hammer test’ to areas of the concrete on the balconies, and some areas were unstable, with concrete becoming loose and exposing the reinforcement behind.
3. The applicants say that it was not possible to carry out a further consultation in relation to these additional works, because the contractor was already on site.
4. On 16 August 2019, the tribunal issued directions, which required amongst other things for any [NAME] who opposed the application to indicate their opposition on a reply-slip and provide a statement setting out the grounds of opposition.
5. The directions also required the applicant to provide a bundle of documents, including any statements from respondents. A bundle has been supplied to the tribunal and it appears from those documents that there has been no opposition to the application.
6. The tribunal has considered the papers provided and determines that it should exercise its discretion and grant dispensation from any further requirements to consult [NAME] in relation to these additional works.
7. The parties should be aware however, that the grant of dispensation does not mean that the tribunal is satisfied the works, when complete will be reasonable or the costs of carrying out those works would be either reasonable or payable by the respondents. The respondents’ rights under S.27A of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 to challenge the cost and/or payability of the costs for the works are preserved.
3
Tribunal: [NAME]: 16 September 2019.
Rights of appeal
By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Right to Manage Company Granted Dispensation for Urgent Drain Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Premiums for New Leases Based on Expert Valuations
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Masonry Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Property Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Compressor Replacements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation Without Conditi…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenant Breached Repair Obligations Under Lease
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 tribunal granted dispensation for additional works to reinforced concrete balconies.
- The additional works were discovered after the initial, consulted-upon works had already begun.
- The contractor was already on site, making a further consultation impossible.
- No opposition to the application was submitted by any of the leaseholders.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal granted dispensation from the requirement to consult leaseholders for additional works on reinforced concrete balconies.
Who was involved?
The landlord and various leaseholders were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the contractor was already on-site, making further consultation impractical.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 sections 20ZA and 27A were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The impracticality of further consultation due to the contractor's presence on-site was the central argument.
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 may also be able to bypass consultation requirements if further consultation is impractical.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the contractor's presence on-site and the impracticality of further consultation were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions 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 seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.
