First-tier Tribunal Grants Exemption for Urgent Lift Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted an exemption from consulting tenants about major works due to urgent lift repairs at a property in Horsham, West Sussex. The decision was made on paper without an oral hearing.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be exempted from consulting tenants about major works if the works are urgent and necessary for the use of residents.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant an exemption from consultation requirements related to certain works or long-term agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works done on a building or premises and 'qualifying long term agreement' as an agreement lasting over twelve months. The consultation requirements can include providing details of proposed works to tenants, obtaining estimates, considering tenant proposals for estimates, and giving reasons for carrying out works.
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 due to urgent lift repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 due to urgent lift repairs at a property in Horsham, West Sussex. The decision was made on the papers without an oral hearing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/45UF/LDC/2021/0088/AW
Property
:
5-13 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
[RESPONDENT]
Respondent: [redacted]
:
-
Type of Application
:
To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works: section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Tribunal Member(s)
:
Judge E Morrison
Date of Decision
:
17 November 2021 (on the papers)
DECISION
Background
2
1. This is an application for dispensation from the consultation required by section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
2. The application explained that the lift at [ADDRESS] was out of order and required repair, causing access problems for elderly residents. A repair was needed to get the lift working again before a full refurbishment planned for next year.
3. The Tribunal directed [RESPONDENT] to respond in writing by 3 November 2021 stating whether they consented to or opposed the application. The Tribunal has received only 2 response forms, which both agreed with the application.
4. The Tribunal also directed that the application was to be dealt with on the papers. Having reviewed the responses received, neither of which request an oral hearing, the Tribunal remains of the view that a determination on the papers is appropriate as no matters are in dispute.
Decision
5. In light of the urgency of getting the lift back into working order for the use of the residents, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with all consultation requirements in respect of the lift repair works.
6. This decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements. The Tribunal has made no determination as to whether the costs of the works were reasonable. If a leaseholder wishes to challenge the reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would be required.
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.
3 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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Excess Works Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Must Get Landlord's Permission Before Adding Structures
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Interest Value at £300
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenants in Breach of Lease for Unauthorised Alter…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Secures Section 20C Order Limiting Landlord Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Denies Landlord's Request for Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Declines to Appoint Manager Due to Lack of Suitable Nom…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Not Payable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Late Financial Penalty Appeal
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 deemed urgent and necessary for resident use.
- The landlord seeks exemption due to necessity without causing undue harm.
- The claim involves a request for dispensation from consultation requirements.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant fails to provide sufficient justification for late appeals.
- Service charges are demanded without conforming to lease terms.
- No suitable manager is nominated by either party.
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 for urgent lift repairs.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the leaseholders were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord could bypass the consultation requirements because the lift repairs were urgent and necessary for resident use.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The urgency and necessity of the lift repairs for resident use were the most important arguments.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to bypass consultation requirements if their repairs are urgent and necessary for resident use.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence of the lift being out of order and causing access problems for elderly residents was crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision must seek permission to do so within 28 days of receiving the written reasons for the decision.
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.