VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation from Consultation Requirements

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent repairs because the tenants did not object.

⚖️ Legal holding

Dispensation from consultation requirements is granted when there are no objections raised by tenants.

Topics

dispensation from consultation requirementsurgent repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZAService Charges (Consultation etc)(England) Regulations 2003

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant a landlord dispensation from consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so, especially when there are urgent repairs and no objections from leaseholders.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements due to lack of objections and perceived urgency of the works.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, due to urgent repairs and lack of leaseholder objections.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AU/LDC/2025/0632 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] [NAME] (Flat 2) [NAME] (Flat 3) [NAME] (Flat 4)

Type of Application :

Dispensation from consultation requirements under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 20ZA Tribunal Members :

Judge Professor R Percival

Venue : Remote paper determination Date of Decision : 15 April 2025

DECISION

2

Decisions of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal, pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), grants dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the works which are the subject of the application. Procedural 1. The landlord submitted an application for retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) and the regulations thereunder, dated 27 January 2025.

2. The Tribunal gave directions on 21 February 2025. The directions provided for a form to be distributed to those who pay the service charge to allow them to object to or agree with the application, and, if objecting, to provide such further material as they sought to rely on. The application and directions was required to be sent to the [NAME] and any sublessees, and to be displayed as a notice in the common parts of the property. The deadline for return of the forms, to the Applicant and the Tribunal, was 21 March 2025.

3. The Applicant confirmed that the relevant documentation had been sent to the [NAME] and displayed.

4. No response from any of the [NAME] has been received by the Tribunal. The property and the works 5. The property is a purpose built block of flats on four floors.

6. The works are the removal and replacement of a blocked and corroded cast iron soil pipe, with some associated work.

7. The Applicant received two quotations, for £2,150 plus VAT, and for £1,700. I have not been told which was accepted, but assume the cheaper. Determination 8. The relevant statutory provisions are sections 20 and 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1983, and the Service Charges (Consultation etc)(England) Regulations 2003. They may be consulted at the following URLs respectively:

3 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 1985/70 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1987/contents/made 9. The Tribunal is concerned solely with an application under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with the consultation requirements under section 20 and the regulations.

10. The work was properly seen as urgent, as it occasioned by soil backing up from the blocked and corroded pipe.

11. But in any event, no response has been received from any of the [NAME] objecting to the application. It is therefore clear that none of the [NAME] have sought to claim any prejudice as a result of the consultation requirements not having been satisfied. Where that is the case, the Tribunal must, quite apart from any question of urgency, allow the application: [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] 1 WLR 854.

12. This application relates solely to the granting of dispensation. If the [NAME] consider the cost of the works to be excessive or the quality of the workmanship poor, or if costs sought to be recovered through the service charge are otherwise not reasonably incurred, then it is open to them to apply to the Tribunal for a determination of those issues under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Rights of appeal 13. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the London regional office.

14. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

15. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, the application 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 these reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4

16. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, give the date, the property and the case number; state the grounds of appeal; and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

Name: Judge Prof Richard Percival Date: 15 April 2025

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

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 tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for the works.
  • The works were considered urgent because soil was backing up from a blocked and corroded pipe.
  • No resident objected to the application for dispensation, indicating no prejudice from the lack of consultation.
  • The landlord confirmed that all required documentation was sent to the residents and displayed.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant the landlord dispensation from consultation requirements.

Who was involved?

The landlord and several leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the leaseholders did not object and the work was urgent.

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 fact that the leaseholders did not object to the application was crucial.

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?

If leaseholders do not object and the work is urgent, a landlord may be able to get dispensation from consultation requirements.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The lack of responses from leaseholders was important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a party can appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.