First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Permission for Major Works Without Consultation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/00HE/LDC/2026/0056 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] To dispense with the requirement to consult [NAME] about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge Bowden Date of Decision : 19 June 2026

DECISION

Page 2 of 9 This is a formal order of the Tribunal which must be complied with by the parties. Communications to the Tribunal MUST be made by email to [EMAIL]. All communications must clearly state the Case Number and address of the premises. Summary of the Decision

Summary of Decision (1) The applicant is granted dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act in relation to the works to reinstate the lift at the property. (2) The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of the works are reasonable or payable. Background 1. The applicant is [APPELLANT], represented by [COMPANY] and its agent [NAME]

2. The respondents are the [NAME] of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] being: [NAME] 1 Mrs [NAME] [NAME] 2 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 3 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 4 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 5 Mr & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] 6 Mr G & Mrs P [NAME] 7 Mr & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] 8 Mrs V [NAME] 3 of 9 [NAME] 9 Mrs [NAME] [NAME] 10 Mr & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] 11 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 12 [NAME] [NAME] 12a Mrs [NAME] [NAME] 14 [NAME] [NAME] 15 Mrs [APPELLANT] together, the “[NAME]” 3. The applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act. The application was received on 01 April 2026.

4. The property is described as: a. 5-storey brick built building with pitched tile roof, comprising flats and service areas. There is a passenger lift which serves all floors. b. The property has an age restriction and may accept residents aged 55 or older. The average age of residents is 70+. c. There are 15 flats which is a mix of 1 and 2 bedrooms. d. The property was built circa 1990, and the lift was installed at the time.

5. The applicant explains that: a. The lift in the building has broken down. b. An engineer has determined that the lift has reached the end of its service life due to its age (36 years) and prolonged use. c. The lift has been correctly maintained, serviced and inspected throughout its life. d. The directors instructed the managing agent to arrange for the reinstatement of the lift as a matter of urgency.

Page 4 of 9 e. The age of the residents is such that many of them are dependent on the lift to be able to get out of the building. f. There are regular visitors from the medical profession, and access with a wheelchair is essential for some of our residents. g. A working lift in this building with these residents and their associated needs is essential.

6. The Tribunal gave Directions on 14 April listing the steps to be taken by the parties in preparation for the determination of the dispute, if any.

7. The Directions stated that the Tribunal would determine the application on the papers received unless a party objected in writing to the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of receipt of the Directions. No party has objected to the application being determined on the papers. Mrs [NAME], [NAME] 15 agreed with a paper determination. On/around 19 May 2026, the applicant’s representative confirmed that it had not received any objections.

8. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application is not about the proposed costs of the works, and whether they are recoverable from the [NAME] as service charges or the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022. The [NAME] have the right to make a separate application to the Tribunal under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to determine the reasonableness of the costs, and the contribution payable through the service charges. The Law 9. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) and the related Regulations provide that where [NAME] undertakes qualifying works with a cost of more than £250 per lease, the relevant contribution of each [NAME] (jointly where more than one under any given lease) will be limited to that sum unless the required consultations have been undertaken or the requirement has been dispensed with by the Tribunal. An application may be made retrospectively.

Page 5 of 9 10. The relevant section of the Act reads as follows: S.20 ZA Consultation requirements: 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 longterm agreement, the Tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.

11. The appropriate approach to be taken by the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v Benson et al [2013] UKSC 14.

12. The leading judgment of Lord [NAME] explained that a Tribunal should focus on the question of whether [NAME] will be or had been prejudiced in either paying where that was not appropriate or in paying more than appropriate because the failure of [NAME] to comply with the regulations. The requirements were held to give practical effect to those two objectives and were a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

13. The factual burden of demonstrating prejudice falls on [NAME]. [NAME] must identify what would have been said if able to engage in a consultation process. If [NAME] advances a credible case for having been prejudiced, [NAME] must rebut it. The Tribunal should be sympathetic to [NAME](s).

14. Where the extent, quality and cost of the works were in no way affected by [NAME]’s failure to comply, Lord [NAME] said as follows: I find it hard to see why the dispensation should not be granted (at least in the absence of some very good reason): in such a case the tenants would be in precisely the position that the legislation intended them to be- i.e. as if the requirements had been complied with.

15. The main, indeed normally, the sole question, as described by Lord [NAME], for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether, or not, [NAME] will be or has been caused relevant prejudice by a failure of the

Page 6 of 9 applicant to undertake the consultation prior to the major works, and so whether dispensation in respect of that should be granted.

16. Relevant prejudice is concerned with whether the [NAME] have been deprived of a realistic opportunity to: a. challenge the appropriateness of the proposed works; or b. secure that the works are carried out at a lower cost, or by a different contractor, than might otherwise have been the case 17. The question is one of the reasonableness of dispensing with the process of consultation provided for in the Act, not one of the reasonableness of the charges of works arising or which have arisen. If dispensation is granted, that may be on terms.

18. There have been subsequent Decisions of the higher Courts and Tribunals of assistance in the application of the Decision in Daejan, but none are relied upon or therefore require specific mention in this Decision. Consideration 19. The consultation requirements are a means to an end, and not an end in themselves. The Tribunal’s task is not to punish procedural non- compliance, but to consider whether the absence of consultation has caused, or is likely to cause, the tenants to pay more than is reasonable or to pay for works which are inappropriate.

20. The question the Tribunal asked itself was whether, in all the circumstances, and having regard to the issue of relevant prejudice, it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements.

21. The Directions attached a reply form for the respondents to complete to confirm whether they agreed with the application or not, and if opposed, to provide a statement setting out why they oppose.

22. Only one the [NAME] replied. Mrs [APPELLANT], [NAME]

15. She agreed with the applicant and a written determination.

23. The reason why dispensation from consultation requirements is said to be required is because the age of the residents is such that many of them are

Page 7 of 9 dependent on the lift to be able to get in and out of the building. Visitors, including health professionals, visit the building regularly and require there to be a working lift. Some residents are wheelchair users, therefore need the lift to access other floors and or the entrance/exit.

24. Given the nature of the works and in order to ensure the residents, visitors, medical professionals and wheelchair users can access the building and do so safely, the Tribunal is satisfied that the qualifying works are/were of an urgent nature.

25. There has been no objection to the dispensation of the consultation requirements from any of the [NAME]. Therefore, none of the [NAME] asserted that any prejudice had been caused to them. Mrs [NAME] was in support. Findings 26. The Tribunal considered all the evidence submitted by the parties and applied its expert knowledge, general knowledge, and experience in assessing the proposed work and the estimated costs.

27. The Tribunal found: a. that the lack of consultation had not caused, or was likely to cause, the [NAME] to pay more than is reasonable or to pay for inappropriate works; and b. that nothing different would be done or achieved in the event of a full consultation with the [NAME], except for the potential delay and potential problems. Determination 28. The Tribunal determines that it is reasonable to dispense with all of the formal consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying works to the building as described in this Decision.

29. This Decision is confined to the determination of the issue of dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying works for the works.

Page 8 of 9 30. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs are payable or reasonable. If a [NAME] wishes to challenge the payability or reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.

31. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal has taken into account the fact that no party has objected to the application. The [NAME] have had the opportunity to raise any objection, and they have not done so. The Tribunal does, however, direct that the dispensation is conditional upon the applicant or their agent sending a copy of this decision to the [NAME] so that they are aware of it.

Name: Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Bowden Date: 19 June 2026

Page 9 of 9 RIGHTS OF APPEAL 1. A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case by email at [EMAIL].

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.

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

4. The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers. Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.