First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Alarm Installation Dispensation
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the landlord to skip the usual consultation process with leaseholders for installing a fire alarm system, deeming it necessary for urgent fire safety reasons.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may obtain dispensation to bypass consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so and no relevant prejudice will be suffered by the leaseholders.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant permission to a landlord to bypass consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so and there is no relevant harm to the leaseholders.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation to the landlord to bypass consultation requirements for installing a fire alarm system.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to the landlord to bypass consultation requirements for the installation of a fire alarm system, finding no relevant prejudice to the leaseholders.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference : MAN/13UB/LDC/2020/0043
Property : The [APPELLANT], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted] : [COUNSEL]
Respondent: [redacted] Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – section 20ZA
Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Paper Determination : 21 June 2021
Date of Decision : 5 July 2021
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021
2 DECISION
Pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the Tribunal makes a determination to dispense with the requirement to consult with the Respondents on the works to install a fire alarm system referred to within the Reasons below.
REASONS
The Application 1. The application (‘the Application’) was made on 9 October 2020 by the Applicant management company. It seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’) in relation to the statutory consultation requirements prescribed by Section 20. Dispensation is sought for the installation of an integrated fire alarm system at the Property. The Property is a purpose build block of flats comprises of 60 flats over four floors. The Respondents are the leaseholders of the flats.
2. At the time of the Application the Applicant proposed installing an integrated fire alarm system at an estimated cost of £28,260.90 plus VAT. It was indicated in the Application that dispensation was sought because the fire alarm system was required urgently and would obviate the need for the waking watch service, costing £15,000 per month. The installation of an integrated fire alarm system, or the waking watch service, is required to comply with an enforcement notice issued by the [NAME].
3. Pursuant to Directions, the Applicant submitted a statement of case and related documents on 19 March 2021.
4. Directions issued to the parties required that Respondents submit, within 21 days of receiving the Applicant’s statement of case, any statement they wish to submit in response. No statement has been received by the tribunal in response to the Applicant’s statement of case, and the Applicant’s representative [COUNSEL] has confirmed that no such statement has been received by them. The Law 5. Extracts from Sections 20 and 20ZA of the Act are reproduced in Annex B.
6. The Tribunal considers the Supreme Court case of [COMPANY] v [NAME] and Others [2013] UKSC 14 (‘Daejan’) to be the leading case on dispensation. In Daejan Lord [NAME] stated that in deciding pursuant to section 20ZA whether it is reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements, a tribunal should consider whether any relevant prejudice would be suffered by the leaseholders. Lord [NAME] stated that whilst the legal burden of proof rests throughout on the landlord, the factual burden of identifying some relevant prejudice that they would or might have suffered rested on the tenants.
3 Determination 7. In this case, none of the Respondents have submitted a statement of case opposing the Application. The tribunal finds therefore that there is no relevant prejudice identified by any Respondent, suffered as a consequence of the Applicant’s decision not to follow the consultation requirements prescribed by section 20 of the Act.
8. A Section 20 consultation process was commenced with a Notice of Intention relating to the proposed works being served on 24 September 2020. Leaseholders have been kept informed of progress with the proposed works and the cost estimate received from [NAME].
9. The tribunal also accepts the submission of the Applicant that there is an element of urgency, both in relation to fire safety and as a consequence of the ongoing cost of the waking watch service, a cost that is no longer incurred once the fire alarm system has been installed.
10. A decision on the issue of dispensation does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs resulting from any works are reasonably incurred or payable.
11. In the circumstances of this case, the tribunal considers it reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements.
Accordingly, the tribunal makes a determination under section 20ZA of the Act to dispense with the requirement to consult with the Respondents under Section 20, in relation to the fire alarm system referred to in these reasons.
J A Platt Tribunal Chairman 5 July 2021
4 Annex A
Leaseholders
Mrs [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Mr [NAME] Ms [NAME] Mrs [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] Ms [NAME] Mr [NAME] & Ms [NAME] Mr & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] Mr [NAME] [COMPANY] Mrs [NAME] Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mr [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Miss G [NAME] Miss [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Mr [NAME] & Ms [NAME] Mr [NAME] & Mrs H [NAME] Miss [NAME] Mr [NAME] G [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] & Mr [NAME] PP Ms [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] & Miss [NAME] Miss [NAME] Mr [NAME] Ms [NAME] Mr [NAME] J [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] B [NAME] Mr & Mrs [NAME] Mr & Mrs [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] Mr [APPELLANT] Mr [APPELLANT]
5 Annex B
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 20
(Subsections (1) and (2):)
(1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are [COMPANY] 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 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 under the agreement.
Section 20ZA
(Subsection (1))
(1) Where an application is made to a 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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Flat Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Service Charge Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation From Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Emergency Sewage Pump Work
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs at Grimshaw…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Street Lighting Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Remedial Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Urgent Fire Safety Upgrades Without Leaseholde…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Con…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Exemption From Consultation Requirements for Urgent Sewage…
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 landlord acts reasonably.
- No prejudice is suffered by leaseholders.
- Works are necessary and urgent.
- Health and safety works are urgent.
- Dispensation is sought under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
- Works are necessary, appropriate, and urgent.
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 installing a fire alarm system.
Who was involved?
The landlord and leaseholders were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the fire alarm system was needed urgently and no leaseholder would suffer relevant prejudice.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the fire alarm system was required urgently and would prevent the need for a costly waking watch service.
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 may also seek dispensation if they can show that the work is urgent and no relevant prejudice will be suffered by the leaseholders.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included the cost estimate for the fire alarm system and the ongoing cost of the waking watch service.
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 always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.
