First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Works Dispensation
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent fire safety works. The works were necessary to ensure the safety of the building's residents. No objections were raised.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary for safety.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and outlines the consultation requirements that can be dispensed with.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements due to urgent safety concerns.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for the landlord to carry out urgent fire safety works. The works were deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the building's residents. No objections were received.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AG/LDC/2021/0145 P:REMOTE Property : 41 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT] Respondents : [redacted] the application dated 29 April 2021
Representative : Not represented Type of Application : [POSTCODE] Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Member : Judge F J Silverman MA LLM
Date of paper consideration : 05 October 2021
Date of Decision : 05 October 2021
2
DECISION
REASONS
1. By an application made to the Tribunal on 29 April 2021 the Applicants seek a determination of their application for dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by s. 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
2. Directions were issued by the Tribunal on 17 June 2021.
3. This matter was determined by a paper consideration P:REMOTE on 05 October 2021 at which the Tribunal considered the Applicants’ application and accompanying documents.
4. The Directions issued by the Tribunal had been sent by the Applicants to all Respondents asking them to respond and to indicate whether or not they opposed the application. No consultation took place in view of the urgency of the situation. No objections were received by the Tribunal or by the Applicants.
5. The Applicants applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in order to authorise the repair and replacement of fire protection equipment in the building to ensure the safety of the occupants. An initial report carried out in April 2021 had revealed serious defects in the existing equipment and following the receipt of two separate quotations which were sent to
The Tribunal determines that it will exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 on the grounds that the works proposed by the Applicants were required urgently to maintain the safety of the building for its residents. No objections were received to the application.
3 the [NAME] the works were carried out and completed on 21 April 2021.
6. No consultation has been undertaken but as stated above, no objections to the application have been received from the Respondents. No prejudice has been caused to any of the tenants by the lack of full consultation.
7. The Applicants seeks dispensation from all consultation requirements as it was not practical or possible to comply properly with the consultation requirements given the urgency of the works .
8. The application states that the works are qualifying works, which are works that, without a dispensation from the Tribunal, would require the Applicants to follow the consultation requirements set out in section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.
9. The Applicants therefore request the Tribunal to grant a dispensation from compliance with the full requirements of the section in order to allow the sum incurred to be recovered through the service charge.
10. The Tribunal was not asked to inspect the property and in the context of the issues before it did not consider that an inspection of the property would be either necessary or proportionate.
11. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under s.20ZA of the Act. The wording of s.20ZA is significant. Subs. (1) provides:
“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” (emphasis added).
12. The Tribunal understands that the purposes of the consultation requirements is to ensure that [NAME] are given the fullest possible opportunity to make observations about expenditure of money for which they will in part be liable.
13. Having considered the submissions made by the Applicants the Tribunal is satisfied that the works carried out were necessary and that no undue prejudice will be caused to or suffered by any tenant by the grant of dispensation under s20ZA.
4 14. This determination does not affect the tenants’ rights to apply to the Tribunal challenging the payability or reasonableness of the service charges.
Judge F J Silverman as Chairman Date 05 October 2021
Note: Appeals
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.
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 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Drain Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Safety Measures
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Boiler Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Balcony Repairs Dispensation
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 described as urgent and necessary for safety.
- The works are said to be urgent and necessary to prevent safety risks.
- The works are deemed urgent and necessary to maintain safety.
- The works are considered urgent and necessary to prevent safety hazards.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No applicable factors listed in the provided cases.)
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 consultation requirements for urgent fire safety works.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the leaseholders were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and necessary for safety.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the urgency and necessity of the fire safety works.
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 be able to bypass consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary for safety.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The initial report revealing serious defects in the fire protection equipment and the urgency of the situation were key pieces of evidence.
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 always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
