VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a housing association to bypass certain consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, ruling that it was reasonable to do so due to significant cost savings.

⚖️ Legal holding

A housing association is entitled to dispense with consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if it is reasonable to do so.

Topics

tenancyconsultation requirementsdispensation

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant a determination to waive consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to work done on buildings or other premises, and a qualifying long-term agreement is one lasting over twelve months. The consultation requirements involve providing tenants with details of proposed works or agreements, obtaining estimates, inviting tenant suggestions for additional estimates, considering tenant feedback, and giving reasons for certain actions.

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

📖 Technical summary

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

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a housing association dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, finding it reasonable to do so given the substantial savings in costs.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2019/0092 Property : The leasehold properties within the [COMPANY] estates in London SW16, SE5 and SE11 and in Walsall as listed on the application. Applicant : [redacted] :

Respondents : [redacted] application Representative :

Type of application : For the dispensation of some of the consultation requirements under s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : [APPELLANT] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 14 August 2019

DECISION

2 Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal determines that those parts of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ("the Act") which have not been complied with are to be dispensed with. The application 1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.20ZA of the Act for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Act. The application was dated 5 June 2019.

2. Directions of the Tribunal were issued on 19 June 2019.

3. The case was listed for a paper determination. No request had been made by any of the parties for an oral hearing. The hearing 4. The matter was determined by way of a paper hearing which took place on 17 July 2109. The background 5. The applicant (“WATMOS”) is a housing association comprising of mixed tenure estates in London and Walsall. There are 1,2802 properties in London of which 348 are leasehold and 1,731 in Walsall of which 31 are leasehold. Since 2016, the Walsall properties have been joined to the [NAME] (“[NAME]”) for the provision of gas and electricity for the communal services to the estates. No formal consultation took place at that time as most leaseholders were paying less than £100 pa towards the communal electricity supplies.

6. It is proposed that the London estates be added to the Framework Agreement from July 2019 as the individual contracts expire. The current [NAME] will not accept new entrants after July 2019 when it will start to prepare for re-procuring in 2020. The whole [NAME] will expire in 2020 and [NAME] will carry out a new procurement exercise on behalf of all current Framework members to secure supplies to 2024. Administratively it would be practical to use the same Framework across all WATMOS’ estates since WATMOS does not have the capacity or capability to achieve the benefits of the Framework Agreement itself without employing an expert at additional cost to act on its behalf.

7. The evidence adduced by WATMOS is that procurement of gas and electricity through a Framework Agreement with [NAME] will result in a

3 substantial lowering of costs which will be of benefit to the leaseholders.

8. No notice was received from any of the respondents opposing the application. Decision of the tribunal 9. Section 20 of the Act provides for the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutory consultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250 can be recovered from a tenant in respect of such works unless the consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed with.

10. Dispensation is dealt with by section 20ZA of the Act which provides:- "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"

11. The Tribunal is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of this case involving a substantial saving of costs, it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of long term agreements for the supply of gas and electricity to replace existing contracts when they expire.

12. The Tribunal's determination is limited to this application for dispensation of consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Act.

Name:

[NAME]: 14 August 2019

📊 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

  • Works are considered urgent and necessary.
  • Compliance with consultation requirements would cause undue hardship or risk.
  • There is a clear and immediate need to address safety or health issues.
  • Dispensing with consultation is deemed reasonable in the circumstances.
  • Urgent repairs are necessary to prevent further damage or costs.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors listed against the claimant based on the provided cases.)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal allowed the housing association to bypass certain consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Who was involved?

A housing association and its leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements due to the substantial savings in costs.

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 dispensation would result in substantial cost savings for the leaseholders.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was in favour of the housing association.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to bypass certain consultation requirements if they can demonstrate substantial cost savings.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing the substantial cost savings was crucial.

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 recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving complex legal issues.

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.