First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Lift Works Dispensation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

HAV/21UC/LDC/2025/0782

Property

:

[ADDRESS], 1 - [ADDRESS], Eastbourne, East Sussex, [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT]

Respondents

:

[redacted]

: To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Tribunal Judge H Lumby

Date of Decision

:

10 February 2026

DECISION

2 Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal grants the application for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (Section 20ZA of the same Act) in relation to works to carry out an emergency refurbishment of the passenger lift serving Tower 1 at [NAME]. The background to the application 1. The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act. This application was received on 22 December 2025.

2. [NAME] is described as a purpose built block housing 57 flats. The flats are separated across four individual sections (referred to as Towers), each with their own main entrance door and passenger lift. The building was constructed around 1994.

3. The Applicant is the landlord of [NAME] with responsibility to the [NAME] for the provision of services. The Respondents comprise its [NAME].

4. The application relates to works to carry out an emergency refurbishment of the passenger lift serving Tower 1 at [NAME]. Tower 1 is arranged over six floors and includes 11 residential flats. The passenger lift (which dates from the building’s original construction) has been assessed by specialist lift engineers as beyond repair following a recent breakdown; the engineers advised that an emergency refurbishment of the electrical components was required to reinstate the lift to working order.

5. The works were said to be urgent because the loss of a usable lift severely impacts on the residents, who are aged between the early 70s and 99 in age. The Applicant also argues that the requirement to obtain two estimates would conflict with its lift maintenance contract. The works had been commenced at the time of the application.

6. The Applicant has provided a quotation for the works to the Tribunal; this comes to £29,820 plus VAT for the works and an additional £4,820 plus VAT for hydraulic system servicing. It is understood to that the Applicant has provided this and the engineer’s reports to the [NAME] and informed them of the proposal to proceed with the works.

7. A full statutorily compliant consultation has not been carried out and the Applicant has applied for dispensation instead.

3 8. The Applicant has confirmed that no objections have been received from the Respondents.

9. By Directions of the Tribunal dated 5 January 2026 it was decided that the application be determined without a hearing, by way of a paper case. No objections have been received to this approach. The Tribunal has reviewed the documentation provided and is satisfied that it remains suitable for a paper determination.

10. The Tribunal did not inspect [NAME] as it considered the documentation and information before it in the set of documents prepared by the Applicant enabled the Tribunal to proceed with this determination.

11. This has been a paper determination which has not been objected to by the parties. The documents that were referred to are the Applicant’s application, a specimen lease, a list of the Respondents, copies of reports from the lift engineers, a scope of works, a quotation for the works and the Tribunal’s Directions dated 5 January 2026, the contents of which have been recorded.

The issues

12. This decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying works. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs are payable or reasonable. If a Lessee wishes to challenge the payability or reasonableness of those costs as service charges, including the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.

Law 13. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) (“the 1985 Act”) and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 require a landlord planning to undertake major works, where a [NAME] will be required to contribute over £250 towards those works, to consult the [NAME] in a specified form.

14. Should a landlord not comply with the correct consultation procedure, it is possible to obtain dispensation from compliance with these requirements by an application such as this one before the Tribunal. Essentially the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.

15. The Applicant seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act from all the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by section 20 of the 1985 Act.

4 16. Section 20ZA relates to consultation requirements and provides as follows:

“(1) 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.

(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. …. (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 recognised tenants’ association representing them, (b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c) to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association 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 recognised tenants’ association 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.

Applicable test 17. In the case of [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, by a majority decision (3-2), the Supreme Court considered the dispensation provisions and set out guidelines as to how they should be applied.

18. The Supreme Court came to the following conclusions:

a. The correct legal test on an application to the Tribunal for dispensation is: 

“Would the flat owners suffer any relevant prejudice, and if so, what relevant prejudice, as a result of the landlord’s failure to comply with the requirements?”

5 b. The purpose of the consultation procedure is to ensure [NAME] are protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than would be appropriate.

c. In considering applications for dispensation the Tribunal should focus on whether the [NAME] were prejudiced in either respect by the landlord’s failure to comply. d. The Tribunal has the power to grant dispensation on appropriate terms and can impose conditions. e. The factual burden of identifying some “relevant prejudice” is on the [NAME]. Once they have shown a credible case for prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it. f. The onus is on the [NAME] to establish: i. what steps they would have taken had the breach not happened and ii in what way their rights under (b) above have been prejudiced as a consequence

19. Accordingly, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was any “relevant prejudice” that may have arisen out of the conduct of the Applicant and whether it was reasonable for the Tribunal to grant dispensation following the guidance set out above.

Consideration 20. Having read the evidence and submissions from the Applicant and having considered all of the documents and grounds for making the application provided by the Applicant, the Tribunal determines the dispensation issues as follows.

21. It is evident that a statutorily compliant consultation has not been carried out by the Applicant. [APPELLANT], the test for it was whether the Respondents have suffered any relevant prejudice, and if so, what relevant prejudice, as a result of that lack of consultation by the landlord. In doing so, it needed to focus on whether the [NAME] have been prejudiced by paying for inappropriate works or paying an inappropriate amount as a result of the lack of consultation.

22. The Applicant believes that works to carry out an emergency refurbishment of the passenger lift serving Tower 1 at [NAME] needed to be completed urgently to allow use by vulnerable residents. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant’s conclusions.

6 23. It also argues that its contract with the [NAME] prevents the obtaining of two estimates and so prevents a statutorily compliant consultation being carried out. The Tribunal does not accept this argument and the Respondents’ rights to challenge the reasonableness of the amount charged pursuant to section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 remain unaffected.

24. The Tribunal is of the view that, taking into account that there have been no objections to this application from the Respondents, it could not find prejudice to any of the [NAME] by the granting of dispensation relating to works to carry out an emergency refurbishment of the passenger lift serving Tower 1 at [NAME].

25. As a result, the Tribunal believes that it is reasonable to allow dispensation in relation to the subject matter of the application, especially in light of the prejudice to residents of Tower 1 if there had been a delay in carrying out the works whilst a statutorily compliant consultation was carried out.

26. Accordingly, the Tribunal grants the Applicant’s application for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to works to carry out an emergency refurbishment of the passenger lift serving Tower 1 at [NAME].

27. The Applicant shall place a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on dispensation together with an explanation of the [NAME]’ appeal rights on its website (if any) within 7 days of receipt and shall maintain it there for at least 3 months, with a sufficiently prominent link to both on its home page. It should also be posted in a prominent position in the communal areas. In this way, any Respondents who have not returned the reply form may view the Tribunal’s eventual decision on dispensation and their appeal rights.

Rights of appeal 1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL]

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

7 4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.