AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·22 May 2019

First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation from Consultation Requirements

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to the landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for repairs to the AOV system, finding it reasonable to do so under certain conditions.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to a dispensation from the consultation requirements under Section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if it is reasonable to do so.

Topics

tenancy disputesfire safety regulations

Provisions

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

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant a request to skip the consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted a dispensation to the landlord from complying with the consultation requirements under Section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted a dispensation to the landlord from complying with the consultation requirements under Section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing the landlord to proceed with repairs to the AOV system without obtaining multiple estimates.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00CZ/LDC/2019/0001

Property : Ledgard Bridge Mill, Ledgard Bridge, Mirfield [POSTCODE]

Appellant : [redacted] c/o [APPELLANT]

Respondents : [redacted] a list being annexed to the application

Type of Application : Application under Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge [NAME] of Decision : 7th May 2019

Order : The dispensation sought by the Applicant from compliance with section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is granted

Application and background

1 This is an application under Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 seeking a dispensation from the requirement to fulfil the consultation requirements of Section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (further clarified by the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003) in relation to what are termed “qualifying works” within that section.

2 The works in question are repairs to the AOV (automatic opening vent) system) identified by a fire detection survey of the property. Originally it was thought that the defect in the fire detection and suppression system related to the alarm, but subsequent investigation revealed the problem related to the AOV system.

3 The Applicant had quite properly embarked upon a consultation process in respect of the alarm and then superseded this with a further consultation in respect of the AOV system.

4 No formal objections to the application have been received from any of the [NAME] to this application although it is clear from the paperwork provided by the Applicant that the some of the [NAME] had engaged with the process by raising enquiries and also suggesting a contractor from which a quotation could be obtained. (That contractor had been approached and declined to estimate for the work)

5 The basis of the application was that having followed the consultation process the Applicant had received only one tender for the required work: the process envisaging at least two, between which a choice would be required.

6 Following receipt of the application by the Tribunal directions for the further conduct of the matter were given by the Regional Judge of the Tribunal on 25th February 2019.

7 No further submissions were made to the Tribunal in the course of the Application, other than those contained in the application itself and the statement of case provided by the Applicant in response to the directions. No party has requested a hearing and as no further observation of any nature have been forthcoming from any of the [NAME]. it appears to the Tribunal that no tenant has taken issue with the need for the works and the single tendering contractor.

8 There was nothing in the submissions to the Tribunal that provided any clarification as to how, or why this situation had arisen and whether any enquiries had been made elsewhere either as to the responsibility for

repair or meeting the cost thereof. There is nothing to suggest that the Applicant has gone about the works in anything other than good faith.

The Law

9 Section 18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 defines both a “service charge” and also “relevant costs” in relation to such charges whilst Section 19 of the Act limits the amount of those costs that are included in such charges to those which are reasonably incurred in respect of work which is of a reasonable standard.

10 Section 20 of the Act then proceeds to limit the amount of such charges that may be recoverable for what are known as “qualifying works” unless a consultation process has been complied with. By Section 20ZA of the Act qualifying works are any works to the building or other premises to which the service charge applies and the relevant costs would require a contribution from each tenant of more than £250.00.

11 Section 20ZA(1) particularly provides that: “ Where an application is made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works…the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.”

12 The consultation process envisages a multi-stage approach by requiring: (1) A notice of intention to carry out qualifying works (2) The right of the [NAME] to nominate a contractor (3) The need for two, or more, estimates (4) The need to give reasons for the eventual choice of contractor. It is in respect only of the last of these that the Applicant seeks its exemption.

Determination

13 The Tribunal determined this matter without a hearing on 26th April 2019. The Tribunal is able under Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to determine that on an application to dispense with some or all of the consultation requirements under Section 20 it is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with those requirements.

14 On the evidence available to it the Tribunal is able to make the following determinations: (1) Work is required to repair the AOV system. (2) The work is necessary and should be completed as speedily as possible. Fire safety within blocks of flats is a critical issue. (3) There is nothing to suggest any objection from [NAME].

(4) The Applicant appears to have done all that it could to comply with the consultation requirements and has met with a difficulty that is not of its own making. (5) There is nothing apparent from the situation as it is now that would indicate any real prejudice to the [NAME] if the Applicant were able to proceed with the one estimate obtained.

15 Even if the Tribunal does determine that it is appropriate to dispense with compliance with the consultation requirements this does not prejudice the future rights of any leaseholder to challenge the reasonableness of any costs incurred in respect of the relevant works under Section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 relating to the service charges for the year(s) in question.

16 In the circumstances the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements to comply with section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003.

Tribunal Judge J R Rimmer

Annex A

[NAME] [NAME]

Ms [NAME]

Dr [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY] Ms [NAME]

[NAME] & Mrs NJ & Mrs [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME] J [NAME]

[NAME] & Mrs G A & C [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]

Ms [NAME]

[COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME]

[NAME]

Miss [NAME]

[NAME] & Mrs D & J M Mangham

Mrs [NAME]

Ms [NAME]

Mrs [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME]

[NAME] & Mrs N A & A [NAME]

Ms D N Inman & B [NAME] & Mrs G M & [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] Ms [NAME]

Ms [NAME]

[NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] & Mrs S J & [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

[NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] J [NAME]

[NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] & Mrs B S & [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME]

Mrs [NAME]

[NAME] J [NAME] [NAME] T [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME] D [NAME]

[NAME] & Mrs GD [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] J [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME] P [NAME]

[NAME] & [NAME]

[NAME] & Mrs S & [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] E [NAME]

[NAME] & [NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] & Mrs AS & [NAME]

Ms [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] M [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME]

[NAME] [NAME]

[NAME]

[NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME]

[NAME]

[NAME] [NAME] & [NAME]

[NAME]

Ms [COMPANY] [NAME] D I Dryburgh

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

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 landlord shows that the works are necessary for urgent fire safety improvements.
The landlord demonstrates that it is reasonable to grant dispensation from consultation requirements.
The landlord provides evidence that consultation would cause significant delays or financial burden.
The landlord proves that partial dispensation is sufficient to address the situation effectively.
The landlord convinces the tribunal that the circumstances justify bypassing full consultation.

❌ Tends to be rejected

(No factors listed as all cases resulted in favor of the claimant)

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 the consultation requirements for repairs to the AOV system.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the leaseholders of the property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that it was reasonable to grant the dispensation because the landlord had attempted to follow the consultation process but faced difficulties.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The court applied the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically Sections 20 and 20ZA, and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the landlord had attempted to obtain multiple estimates but faced difficulties in doing so.

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 might be able to seek a dispensation from the consultation requirements if they can show that it is reasonable to do so.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence that mattered included the landlord's attempts to follow the consultation process and the difficulties encountered in obtaining multiple estimates.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

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.