First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Necessary Works

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case reference : MAN/00BR/LDC/2024/0059

Property

: [APPELLANT[NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Applicant’s : [APPELLANT]

Respondents : [redacted]

Type of

: Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 - Section 20ZA Application

Tribunal

: [NAME] [NAME] Members

[NAME] [NAME], FTPI

Date of Paper : 09 April 2025 Determination

_________________________________________________________

DECISION _________________________________________________________

Ⓒ CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY

2 DECISION

1. 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 [APPELLANT[NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] described in Schedule 1.

REASONS The Application 2. The application (‘the Application’) was made on 06 August 2024 by [APPELLANT[COMPANY] (‘the Applicant’). 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.

3. Dispensation is sought for the replacement of all the timber framed windows throughout the development with PVCu windows, repairs to surrounding masonry and internal finishes, repairs to the soffits and ridges, and redecorating of the internal communal areas (‘the Works’).

4. The Works are to be carried out to [APPELLANT[NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘[NAME]’), comprising 90 self-contained residential 2 bedroom apartments in four low rise blocks. The Applicant is the freehold proprietor of [NAME] and the Respondents are the [NAME] of the 90 residential apartments. A sample lease evidences a lease term of 125 years from and including 01 June 1991.

5. The Applicant’s statement of case avers that: A full independent survey assessment was conducted in May 2024 and has confirmed that multiple works are now urgently required, including: • Full replacement of failing timber windows – which are beyond repair, causing severe damp, condensation, and energy inefficiency. • Internal and external redecoration – required not just for appearance, but to preserve the structural integrity of the building. • Structural maintenance – to be phased over several years, ensuring works remain financially viable for [NAME].

The most immediate concern is the widespread failure of windows, which is directly causing: • Severe damp and mould, particularly affecting young children and elderly residents. • Health hazards, especially for those with asthma, respiratory issues, or weakened immune systems. • Environmental health concerns, with local authorities already involved due to worsening conditions.

6. The Application seeks dispensation for the works detailed in Schedule 1.

3 7. Directions in the present case were issued on 23 January 2025. The Applicant submitted a bundle of papers including a statement of case and supporting documents. None of the Respondents submitted a statement to the tribunal opposing the Application and the Applicant has confirmed that none of the Respondents has submitted any objections to the Application directly to itself.

8. The Applicant indicated that it would be content with a determination on the papers. The tribunal considered this to be appropriate because none of the Respondents opposed the Application, neither party had requested a hearing and because there was sufficient information before the tribunal to reach a decision. It was unnecessary to conduct an inspection of [NAME] in view of the matters in issue. The Law 9. Extracts from sections 20 and 20ZA of the Act are reproduced in Schedule 2. Section 20ZA subsection (1) provides that the tribunal may make a determination to dispense with consultation requirements ‘if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements’.

10. 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 [NAME]. 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. Lord [NAME] went on to hold that a tribunal is permitted to grant dispensation on terms, including compensating [NAME] for any prejudice suffered by requiring a landlord to reduce the amount claimed as service charge, and including an order for costs. Findings of fact and Reasons for decision 11. None of the Respondents have submitted a statement of case opposing the Application. There is no evidence before the tribunal that any of the Respondents consider themselves to be prejudiced in any way by the absence of a section 20 consultation exercise.

12. The Applicant engaged with the Respondents on its proposals to undertake the Works.

13. The tribunal finds that there is no relevant prejudice identified by any Respondent, suffered as a consequence of the Applicant proceeding with the Works without first carrying out the section 20 consultation.

14. The Respondents have made no representation as to any condition the tribunal might impose in granting dispensation, and there is no evidence of any cost being incurred by the Respondents that should appropriately be met by the Applicant.

15. In these circumstances, the tribunal considers it reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements unconditionally.

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 Works.

4 16. Whilst coming to this decision, the Tribunal does consider that these works could easily have been undertaken within the normal section 20 process. Of particular note is that the surveyor’s report was delivered in May 2024, but the Application not submitted until 6 August 2024 and the statement of case on 5 February 2025, a time during which the full section 20 process could have been undertaken.

17. The tribunal expresses no view as to whether any costs associated with the Works are reasonable in amount, whether the Works are of a reasonable standard or whether the element intended to be recovered by way of service charge is payable, in accordance with the lease terms or within the meaning of sections 19 and 27A of the Act. The tribunal’s decision does not include or imply any determination of such matters.

5 Schedule 1

‘the Works’

1. Removal and disposing of all old timber windows and related features 2. Installation of durable PVCu frames with energy efficient double glazing units, including updating hardware for improved functionality and security, proper sealing and finishing.

3. Rectifying any internal or external damaged caused by the works.

4. Repairing all external soffits and ridges.

5. Redecorating the internal communal areas.

6

Schedule 2

Extracts from legislation

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.

7 Annex A

[NAME]

[NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] R & Ms [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] Ms [NAME] I [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Ms [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] – [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] Ms [NAME] La [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] and Miss [NAME] Miss [NAME] [COMPANY] / [COMPANY] Ms [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] R [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] The Executors of [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Ms [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME] Ms [NAME] & [NAME] Ms [NAME] Dr [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr [NAME] Ms [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Dr T [NAME] [NAME] Ms [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] Miss [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] Ms [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Ms [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Miss L [NAME] / Burns Ms [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Ms [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] and [COMPANY] as trustees of [COMPANY]