First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
📌 In brief
A landlord applied for permission to bypass consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act. The First-tier Tribunal granted this permission because no a person objected or claimed they were harmed by the lack of consultation.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if a person do not object or claim prejudice.
📖 What the law says
The appropriate tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to works done on a building or premises, and the consultation requirements involve providing details to tenants and considering their feedback.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act for works in a residential property.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal granted dispensation to a landlord for the installation of replacement bin store doors and hopper doors in a residential property, as leaseholders did not object or claim prejudice.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2023/0137 Property : [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] represented by [NAME] (UK) [APPELLANT] Respondents : [redacted] :
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 : 22 August 2023
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 the subject of the [NAME]. Procedural 1. The landlord submitted an [NAME] for dispensation from the consultation requirements in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) and the regulations thereunder, dated 10 May 2023.
2. The Tribunal gave directions on 28 June 2023. 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 [NAME], and, if objecting, to provide such further material as they sought to rely on. The [NAME] 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 26 July 2023.
3. The Applicant confirmed that the relevant documentation had been sent to the [NAME].
4. No response from any of the [NAME] has been received by the Tribunal. The Applicant confirmed that no responses had been received by it. The works and consultation 5. The property is a purpose built development comprising two linked blocks, with commercial premises on the ground floor and flats above. There are 36 residential flats.
6. The works are the installation of replacement bin store doors and bin chute hopper doors.
7. The Respondent’s agents report that a fire risk assessment dated 22 July 2022 noted that the rubbish chute hopper doors should be fire resistant, so as to separate the bin store from the chute riser. As a result, the agent engaged with a company called [COMPANY], who proposed self-closing and self-sealing hopper doors, at a cost of £9,350 plus VAT, in a proposal dated 12 January 2023.
3 8. A quotation was obtained from another company, [COMPANY], which the agent describes as comparable, but allowed for some additional work in relation to dampers. The quoted cost was £25,320 plus VAT. A further company also quoted for what appears to be a different approach, at a cost of £16,849 plus VAT.
9. The agents consulted the risk assessor responsible on the [NAME] and EDSB quotations/proposals. He responded that the works as defined in the [NAME] quotation were sufficient. The work was undertaken in June 2023, at a slightly higher cost than quoted (£9,855).
10. The agents report that a section 20 notice of intended works was served on the [NAME] on 14 April 2023. No comments were received from any of the [NAME]. Determination 11. 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: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 1985/70 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1987/contents/made 12. The Tribunal is concerned solely with an [NAME] under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with the consultation requirements under section 20 and the regulations.
13. The Applicant does not suggest that dispensation is necessary as a result of the urgency of the work. The agents started to undertake the consultation requirements in section 20 of the 1985 Act, and there is no obvious reason why they could not have completed them, had the quotations been sought on the same basis, rather than allowing the contractors to bid on the basis of different work specifications.
14. However, no response been received from any of the [NAME] objecting to the [NAME]. It is therefore clear that the [NAME] have not 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 [NAME]: [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] 1 WLR 854.
15. I note that it is not immediately apparent why the works reached the threshold requiring consultation, and no explanation is provided. However, in the light of the failure by any of the [NAME] to claim
4 prejudice, it would not be proportionate to further investigate the question.
16. This [NAME] 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 17. 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].
18. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].
19. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, the [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 these reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.
20. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.
Name: Judge Prof Richard Percival Date: 22 August 2023
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements Due …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Service Charge Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Emergency Sewage Pump Work
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage System Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Con…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation From Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Street Lighting Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Remedial Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation from Consultation Requirem…
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.
- No residents objected to the application or claimed prejudice from the lack of consultation.
- The landlord provided documentation confirming that the relevant information was sent to the residents.
- The works were necessary due to a fire risk assessment noting that rubbish chute hopper doors should be fire resistant.
- The tribunal must allow the application when no prejudice is claimed by the residents.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal allowed a landlord's application for dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Who was involved?
A landlord applied, and leaseholders were affected but did not respond or object.
How did the court decide, and why?
The decision was made based on the lack of objections from leaseholders.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 20ZA and Service Charges (Consultation etc)(England) Regulations 2003.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The lack of objections from leaseholders was crucial in granting dispensation.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
It was for the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If no leaseholders object, a landlord may be granted dispensation from consultation requirements.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The lack of responses to the application form and section 20 notice were key.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but only if permission is sought within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It's advisable to consult with a qualified solicitor for specific advice.
