First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Dispensation
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements to install a fire alarm system urgently needed for fire safety reasons. The decision was based on the significant fire risks identified at the property.
⚖️ Legal holding
In cases involving significant fire safety risks, it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant a request to waive consultation requirements related to certain works or long-term agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as work 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, inviting tenants to suggest estimators, considering tenant observations, and giving reasons for actions in certain situations.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for installing a fire alarm system due to fire safety risks.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for the installation of a wireless EMS radio fire alarm system due to significant fire safety risks at the property.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2020/0062P Property :
1 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant : [redacted] Representative : [COUNSEL] LLP Respondents : [redacted] [NAME] :
Type of [NAME] : For the dispensation of some of the consultation requirements under s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members :
Judge Simon Brilliant
Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision :
31 July 2020
DECISION
Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal determines that those parts of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ("the Act") which have not been complied with are to be dispensed with. This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and all issues could be determined on paper. The critical documents that I was referred to are set out below. The order made is described at the end of these reasons. The [NAME]
1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.20ZA of the Act for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Act. The [NAME] was dated 12 May 2020.
2. Directions of the Tribunal were issued on 5 June 2020.
3. The case was listed for a paper determination. No request had been made by any of the parties for an oral hearing. The hearing 4. The matter was determined by way of a paper hearing which took place remotely on 31 July 2020. The background 5. The premises consist of 12 flats in [ADDRESS]. The [NAME]
6. The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of the installation of a wireless EMS radio fire alarm system (“the fire alarm”). The estimated cost of the work ranges between £7,196.40 plus VAT and £9,750 plus VAT.
7. The [NAME] is said to be urgent because there is at present no fire alarm at the property. Fire safety engineers have confirmed a fire alarm is required.
8. It is said in the [NAME] that the works will be undertaken as soon as the [NAME] has been submitted.
9. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [NAME] did not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.
10. No notice was received from any of the Respondents opposing the [NAME]. The evidence 11. The Applicant’s case is clearly set out in the grounds for seeking dispensation in the [NAME] notice.
12. This provides as follows:
A recent fire risk assessment undertaken at the subject property highlighted
that there is no fire alarm at the property and there is only one escape route out of the building. Fire safety engineers have also inspected the property and confirmed a fire alarm is required, particularly as we cannot confirm the compartmentation of the flats due to difficulties gaining access as a result of the coronavirus. We are proposing to install a wireless EMS radio fire alarm system. Break down of equipment as follows: 7 x Manual Call Point, 5 x Radio Smoke Detector, 5 x Combined Radio Smoke Detector/Sound Units, 11 x Combined Radio Detector/Sounder, 1 x 16–Zone Single– Loop Radio Control Panel (c/w batts) and 2 x Fircell Booster Panel. The quotes received are as follows: 1) [NAME] - £7,196.40 + VAT 2) [NAME] - £9,700 + VAT 3) [NAME] - £9,750 + VAT The works had not been carried out yet. We plan to undertake the works as soon as our [NAME] has been submitted.
13. The Applicant has provided the 26 page Fire Risk Assessment carried out by [NAME] and the 3 quotations referred to above. Decision of the tribunal 14. s.20 of the Act provides for the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutory consultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250 can be recovered from a tenant in respect of such works unless the consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed with.
15. Dispensation is dealt with by s.20ZA of the Act which provides:- "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"
16. The Tribunal is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of this case, involving a clear risk of a fire not being timeously detected at the property, it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of the installation of the fire alarm.
17. The Tribunal's determination is limited to this [NAME] for dispensation of consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Act.
Name:
[NAME]: 31 July 2020
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 [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] 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).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Due to Water Ingress
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Allows Urgent Asbestos Removal Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Exemption for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found in Breach of Multiple Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Adjusts Rent for Ground Floor Flat
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Due to Dry Rot
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Granted Right to Manage Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Successfully Acquires Right to Manage Property
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 property currently has no fire alarm, which poses a clear risk of fire not being detected in time.
- Fire safety engineers have confirmed that a fire alarm system is necessary for the property.
- The fire risk assessment highlighted that there is only one escape route from the building.
- The leaseholders did not object to the application for dispensation.
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 certain consultation requirements to install a fire alarm system.
Who was involved?
The landlord applied for dispensation, and the leaseholders were respondents.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the dispensation due to significant fire safety risks at the property.
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 argument that mattered most was the significant fire safety risks at the property.
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 apply for dispensation if there are significant fire safety risks.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included a fire risk assessment and confirmation from fire safety engineers.
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?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
