First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Alarm Upgrade Dispensation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

HAV/29UQ/LDC/2025/0657 Property

: 52 The Pantiles, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent, [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[APPELLANT] [COMPANY]

Respondent: [redacted]

: None

Type of Application

:

To dispense with the requirement to consult [NAME] about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Member

:

[NAME] of Decision

:

7 July 2025

DECISION

2 Summary of the Decision

1. The Applicant is granted 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 in relation to the installation and/or upgrade of a communal fire alarm system as described at paragraph 4. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of the works are reasonable or payable.

Background

2. 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. The application was received on 22 May 2025.

3. The Property is described as a: “low rise residential property above commercial units consisting of 4 flats on two upper floors. Each flat has a variety of 1 or 2 bedrooms. The property is estimated to have been built circa 1800’s of traditional brick/block construction that has been converted to house 4 self-contained flats in approx 1970’s.”

4. The Applicant explains that: “[APPELLANT] to supply, Install & Commission an upgrade/replacement communal fire alarm system for the property to comply with current fire safety standards and recommendations.

Using the existing system type of “Conventional 2-wire” with an updated panel and devices.

IFS currently service the existing fire alarm system.

Works are planned for 5th June 2025 and were instructed to IFS on 14th May 2025.

Anticipated works and budgeted costs were placed in the service charge budget 2023-24. This service charge budget was issued to all [RESPONDENT].”

5. Dispensation is sought on the grounds that: “Concern for fire alarm viability and its correct operational functions, due to system originally being installed in 2009. We have been advised parts are now not available and routine service engineers have recommended replacement. For safeguarding and alerting residents in the event of a fire it was deemed reasonable practical to upgrade the fire alarm system when already placed in the service charge budget so as not to

3 cause any delays. And to comply with statutory obligations under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.”

6. The Tribunal gave Directions on 28 May 2025 listing the steps to be taken by the parties in preparation for the determination of the dispute, if any.

7. The Directions stated that Tribunal would determine the application on the papers received unless a party objected in writing to the Tribunal within 7 days of the date of receipt of the Directions. No party has objected to the application being determined on the papers.

8. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application is not about the proposed costs of the works, and whether they are recoverable from the [RESPONDENT] as service charges or the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022. The [RESPONDENT] have the right to make a separate application to the Tribunal under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to determine the reasonableness of the costs, and the contribution payable through the service charges.

The Law

9. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) and the related Regulations provide that where [NAME] undertakes qualifying works with a cost of more than £250 per lease, the relevant contribution of each [NAME] (jointly where more than one under any given lease) will be limited to that sum unless the required consultations have been undertaken or the requirement has been dispensed with by the Tribunal. An application may be made retrospectively.

10. The relevant section of the Act reads as follows:

S.20 ZA Consultation requirements: 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 appropriate approach to be taken by the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v [NAME] et al [2013] UKSC 14.

12. The leading judgment of Lord [NAME] explained that a Tribunal should focus on the question of whether [NAME] will be, or had been, prejudiced in either paying where that was not appropriate or in paying more than appropriate because the failure of [NAME] to comply with

4 the regulations. The requirements were held to give practical effect to those two objectives and were a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

13. The factual burden of demonstrating prejudice falls on [NAME]. [NAME] must identify what would have been said if able to engage in a consultation process. If [NAME] advances a credible case for having been prejudiced, [NAME] must rebut it. The Tribunal should be sympathetic to [NAME](s).

14. Where the extent, quality and cost of the works were in no way affected by [NAME]’s failure to comply, Lord [NAME] said as follows:

I find it hard to see why the dispensation should not be granted (at least in the absence of some very good reason): in such a case the tenants would be in precisely the position that the legislation intended them to be- i.e. as if the requirements had been complied with.

15. The main, indeed normally, the sole question, as described by Lord [NAME], for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether, or not, [NAME] will be or has been caused relevant prejudice by a failure of the Applicant to undertake the consultation prior to the major works and so whether dispensation in respect of that should be granted.

16. The question is one of the reasonableness of dispensing with the process of consultation provided for in the Act, not one of the reasonableness of the charges of works arising or which have arisen.

17. If dispensation is granted, that may be on terms.

18. There have been subsequent Decisions of the higher Courts and Tribunals of assistance in the application of the Decision in Daejan but none are relied upon or therefore require specific mention in this Decision.

Consideration

19. The Directions attached a reply form for the Respondents to complete to confirm whether they agreed with the application or not and if opposed, to provide a statement setting out why they oppose.

20. No replies were received by the Tribunal.

21. On 10 June 2025, the Applicant’s representative confirmed that they had not received any objections to the application from the Respondents.

22. Having considered the application and prior to undertaking this determination, I am satisfied that a determination on the papers remains appropriate, given that the application remains unchallenged.

5 23. The Applicant states that dispensation from consultation requirements was deemed necessary due to the urgent need to install or upgrade parts of the existing communal fire alarm system.

24. Given the nature of the works required and the fact that it related to the safety and welfare of residents, I am satisfied that the qualifying works were of an urgent nature.

25. There has been no objection to the dispensation of the consultation requirements from any of the [NAME].

26. None of the [NAME] have therefore asserted that any prejudice has been caused to them. The Tribunal finds that nothing different would be done or achieved in the event of a full consultation with the [NAME], except for the potential delay and potential problems.

27. The Tribunal finds that the Respondents have not suffered any prejudice by the failure of the Applicant to follow the full consultation process.

28. The Tribunal consequently finds that it is reasonable to dispense with all of the formal consultation requirements in respect of the major works to the building as described in this Decision.

29. This Decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the communal fire alarm system as outlined at paragraph 4. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs are payable or reasonable. If a [NAME] wishes to challenge the payability or reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.

30. In reaching my decision I have taken account of the fact that no party has objected to the application. [RESPONDENT] have had opportunity to raise any objection and they have not done so.

6 RIGHTS OF APPEAL

A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] office which has been dealing with the case by email at [EMAIL]

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.

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.

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.