First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process with leaseholders for necessary works, citing urgency and safety concerns. This decision applies to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are necessary and urgent.
📖 What the law says
The tribunal can grant an exemption from consultation requirements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to consult with tenants before making changes to a property.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from the consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing the landlord to proceed with necessary works without consulting leaseholders.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AM/LDC/2019/0032 Property : Flats at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] [APPELLANT] : [NAME] by [NAME] (Managing Agents) Respondent : [redacted] [NAME] : None. Type of [NAME] : [NAME] for dispensation from consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 15 April 2019
DECISION
2
Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The [NAME]
1. The Applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
2. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the Appendix to this decision. The hearing 3. A written [NAME] was made by [COMPANY], the managing agents of the property. The case was decided on paper and no appearances were made. The tribunal considered the written [NAME] form and estimate for the and an email from the tenants living in flat 10. The background 4. The property which is the subject of this [NAME] is a block of 26 flats with commercial property.
5. A specimen lease of flat 6 has been provided. The lease is for a term of 125 years beginning on 1 January 2007 at a ground rent of £300 per annum doubling every 25 years.
6. Works are required to the lift where the estimate provided reports that the safety gear has engaged. The estimate refers to work to be carried out at the commercial block but as an email from a residential tenant has also been provided it is assumed this is a mis-description rather than an estimate concerning the commercial part of the property only. If this is not correct a fresh [NAME] for dispensation will need to be made as the tribunal has no jurisdiction over commercial service charges. The amount of the estimate is £4156.90 plus VAT 7. The tribunal notes that the amount of the estimate divided by the number of flats comes below the consultation threshold and to that extent dispensation is not required. It is assumed this [NAME] is a precaution against additional unforeseen works.
8. The relevant repairs fall under the Landlord’s repairing obligations.
3 The tribunl’s decision 9. The tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of under s20 ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 10. The works are required to ensure the safety and convenience of the residents. The tribunal is satisfied that the works are necessary as a matter of urgency in the circumstances and for the convenience of the residents grants dispensation.
Name: A [NAME]: 15 April 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 [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. 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]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
4 Appendix of relevant legislation
S20 Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements
(1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited 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 leasehold valuation 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 or under the agreement.
(3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount.
(5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.
(6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount.
(7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.[FN1]
5 [FN1] ss.20-20ZA substituted for s.20 subject to savings specified in SI 2004/669 art.2(d)(i)-(vi) by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (2002 c.15), Pt 2 c 5 s 151
[POSTCODE] Consultation requirements: supplementary
(1) Where an [NAME] 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.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b) in any circumstances so prescribed.
(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 [COMPANY] representing them, (b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c) to invite tenants or the [COMPANY] 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 [COMPANY] 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.
(6) Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b) may make different provision for different purposes.
(7) Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.[...] [FN1]
6 [FN1] ss.20-20ZA substituted for s.20 subject to savings specified in SI 2004/669 art.2(d)(i)-(vi) by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (2002 c.15), Pt 2 c 5 s 151
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditi…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Heating Works Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Major Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Full Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Works Dispensation
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 works are necessary.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided to grant dispensation from the consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
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 works were deemed necessary and urgent for the safety and convenience of residents.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically s20ZA, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the works were necessary and urgent for the safety and convenience of residents.
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 the consultation process if their works are necessary and urgent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The estimate for the works and an email from a resident were considered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
