First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Consultation

OUTCOME: Allowed

1 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

Case Reference : HAV/00ML/LDC/2025/0696

Property : 57 The [APPELLANT], Horley, Hove [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT]

Respondent: [redacted] : n/a

Type of [RESPONDENT] : To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees under s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Member(s) : Judge D Gethin

Type of Hearing

: On the papers

Date of Decision : 14 October 2025

DECISION

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 Summary of the Decisions of the Tribunal

1. The Tribunal determines that those parts of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ("the Act") which have not been complied with are to be dispensed with in relation to inspection and possible repairs required to the building’s concrete soffits.

2. Dispensation is granted on the condition that a copy of this decision shall be served by the Applicant upon all leaseholders at the Property.

3. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of the works are reasonable or payable.

The [RESPONDENT]

4. 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 [RESPONDENT] was received on 7 August 2025.

5. The Property is described in the [RESPONDENT] as:

Converted detached house, 9 residential units, 5 storeys

6. The Applicant explains that:

Urgent inspection and possible repairs required to the building’s concrete soffits following a section falling off. The contractor has advised that scaffolding must be erected urgently to allow a full investigation and to ensure there are no other loose or unsafe areas in the vicinity. Given the immediate safety concerns, we are unable to delay these initial steps while awaiting dispensation. Although no repair works have commenced at this stage, we have instructed the contractor to proceed with erecting scaffolding and to carry out a comprehensive inspection in order to provide a quote for the necessary repairs. If other areas are considered to be in danger of falling, we will carry out urgent repairs.

We have issued a Notice of Intention regarding the necessary works and we approached 2 contractors for quotes to inspect. The quotes were very close (£2,244 including VAT and £2,400 including VAT). The freeholder chose the slightly higher quote as

3 they have included clearing a blocked hopper. Due to the urgent nature of the situation with the soffits and the need to ensure the safety of the building, we have instructed the contractor to proceed without delay on their behalf. Scaffolding will be erected as soon as possible to allow for a full investigation and to obtain a detailed quotation for the required repairs. These actions are essential to address potential safety risks and to prevent further deterioration.

As per the above, we are unable to follow the Section 20 consultation process in full, as there is insufficient time to allow each stage to expire. The urgency of the works means immediate action is required to ensure the building and its residents remain safe.

7. The Applicant states that the works are urgent because:

A section of the soffit has fallen from the building, and urgent investigation and repairs are needed to ensure safety of the building. We believe investigation and possible repairs must proceed due to the immediate risk.

8. The lease of Flat 6 has been provided (“the Lease”). It is understood that other leases in the building are on broadly similar or the same terms.

9. The Applicant has various obligations under the Lease, principally set out in clause 3 and the Seventh Schedule, including keeping the reserved property… in a good and tenantable state of repair decoration and condition including the renewal and replacement of all worn or damaged parts… The lessee is required to contribute to the costs and expenses of the Applicant complying with its obligations pursuant to clause 2 and the Sixth Schedule.

10. The works fall within the responsibility of the Applicant and may be chargeable as service charges.

11. The Tribunal gave Directions on 18 August 2025 listing the steps to be taken by the parties in preparation for the determination of the dispute, if any.

12. The Directions stated that the Tribunal would determine the [RESPONDENT] on the papers received unless a party objected in writing to the Tribunal within 7 days of the date of receipt of the Directions. No party has objected to the [RESPONDENT] being determined on the papers. The matter is therefore determined on the papers in accordance with Rule 31 of The

4 Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

13. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [RESPONDENT] is not about the proposed costs of the works, and whether they are recoverable from the lessees through the service charge, or the possible [RESPONDENT] or effect of the statutory protections for lessees including the Building Safety Act 2022. The Lessees have the right to make a separate [RESPONDENT] 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 Hearing

14. The matter was determined by way of a paper hearing which took place on 14 October 2025.

Particulars of the [RESPONDENT]

15. The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of urgent inspection and possible repairs required to the building’s concrete soffits following a section falling off.

16. The Applicant detailed two quotes for the erection of scaffolding to allow inspection, in the sum of £2,244 and £2,4000 both including VAT. It chose the higher quote as the contractor agreed to clear a blocked hopper. Pending the inspection being carried out, the Applicant does not know the cost of the repairs to the soffits.

17. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [RESPONDENT] did not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

18. No notice was received from any of the Respondents opposing the [RESPONDENT]. There is no suggestion of any prejudice arising from the failure to carry out the statutory consultation process

The Law

19. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) and the related Regulations provide that where the lessor undertakes qualifying works (as in this case) with a cost of more than £250 per lease, the relevant contribution of each lessee (jointly where more than one under

5 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 [RESPONDENT] may be made retrospectively.

20. Dispensation is dealt with by s.20ZA of the Act which provides:

Where an [RESPONDENT] 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 long-term agreement, the Tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.

21. 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.

22. Lord [NAME] pointed out, at [40], that s.20ZA provides little guidance on how the dispensing jurisdiction is to be exercised, other than that the tribunal must be “satisfied that it is reasonable to do so”.

23. He continued, at [41]:

“However, the very fact that s.20ZA(1) is expressed as it is means that it would be inappropriate to interpret it as imposing any fetter on the [NAME]’s exercise of the jurisdiction beyond what can be gathered from the 1985 Act itself, and any other relevant admissible material. Further, the circumstances in which a s.20ZA(1) [RESPONDENT] is made could be almost infinitely various, so any principles that can be derived should not be regarded as representing rigid rules.”

24. Having identified the purpose of the consultation provisions as being the protection of tenants from (i) paying for inappropriate works or (ii) paying more than would be appropriate, Lord [NAME] explained, at [44]-[45], that the issue on which tribunals should focus when determining an [RESPONDENT] under s.20ZA(1) was “the extent, if any, to which the tenants were prejudiced in either respect by the failure of the landlord to comply with the requirements”. If “the extent, quality and cost of the works were in no way affected by the landlord’s failure to comply with the requirements” dispensation should normally be granted, because, “in such a case the tenants would be in precisely the position that the legislation intended them to be – ie as if the requirements had been complied with”.

6 25. Lord [NAME] considered, at [46]-[47], that it would not be right to focus on the seriousness of the breach of the consultation requirements; the only relevance of the extent of the landlord’s oversight was “in relation to the prejudice it causes”. The overarching question was not whether the landlord had acted reasonably but was whether the tribunal was satisfied that it was reasonable to dispense with compliance.

26. In assessing the prejudice to the tenants if dispensation was granted Lord [NAME] explained, at [65], that it was necessary to take account only of the sort of prejudice which s.20 was intended to protect against: “… the only disadvantage of which they could legitimately complain is one which they would not have suffered if the requirements had been fully complied with, but which they will suffer if an unconditional dispensation were granted.”

27. Lord [NAME] concluded that dispensation could be granted on conditions. One such condition of dispensation could be to require that the landlord compensate the tenants for any costs they may have incurred in connection with the [RESPONDENT] under s.20ZA. At [64], Lord [RESPONDENT] considered that a landlord seeking dispensation was in a similar position to a party seeking relief from forfeiture, in that they were “claiming what can be characterised as an indulgence from a tribunal at the expense of another party”.

28. Summarising his conclusions, at [71], Lord [NAME] said that: “Insofar as the tenants will suffer relevant prejudice as a result of the landlord’s failure, the [NAME] should, at least in the absence of some good reason to the contrary, effectively require the landlord to reduce the amount claimed as service charges to compensate the tenants fully for that prejudice. That outcome seems fair on the face of it, as the tenants will be in the same position as if the requirements have been satisfied, and they will not be getting something of a windfall.”

29. The effect of Daejan has been considered by the Court of Appeal in [NAME] v [NAME] & Others [2021] EWCA Civ 660, which considered whether the Tribunal was entitled to impose a condition which reflected the relevant prejudice suffered by the lessees in responding to the landlord’s [RESPONDENT].

30. There have been other Decisions of the higher Courts and Tribunals of assistance in the [RESPONDENT] of the Supreme Court decision in Daejan, but none are relied upon or therefore require specific mention in this Decision.

7 The Objections

31. The Directions attached a reply form for the Respondents to complete to confirm whether they agreed with the [RESPONDENT] or not and if opposed, to provide a statement setting out why they oppose.

32. No objections were sent to the Tribunal and on 3 September 2025 the Applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal also confirming that no objections had been received.

33. None of the Lessees have asserted that any prejudice has been caused to them. The Tribunal finds that nothing different would be done or achieved in the event of a full consultation with the Lessees, except for the potential delay and potential problems.

The Decision

34. Having considered the [RESPONDENT] and prior to undertaking this determination, I am satisfied that a determination on the papers remains appropriate, given that the [RESPONDENT] remains unchallenged.

35. The reason why dispensation from consultation requirements is said to be required is the urgency of the works to inspect and then carry out potential repairs to the concrete soffits following a section falling off. Given the nature of the works and the potential of further damage and disruption and/or harm to the occupants of visitors to the Property, the Tribunal is satisfied that the qualifying works were of an urgent nature.

36. For the avoidance of doubt, dispensation from the consultation requirements for any soffit repairs identified as necessary will be granted as well. However, if the Applicant becomes aware that with the scaffolding in place, there is no longer the same urgency for carrying out the repairs, it may decide that it should consult the Lessees on the scope of the soffit repairs.

37. There has been no objection to the dispensation of the consultation requirements from any of the Lessees.

38. The Tribunal finds that the Respondents have not suffered any prejudice by the failure of the Applicant to follow the full consultation process.

39. The Tribunal consequently finds 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.

8 40. This Decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying works for the inspection and possible repairs to the Property’s concrete soffits outlined at paragraphs 6 and 7.

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

42. In reaching my decision I have taken account of the fact that no party has objected to the [RESPONDENT]. The Lessees have had opportunity to raise any objection, and they have not done so.

43. I therefore grant dispensation from the consultation requirements under s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, subject to a condition that a copy of this decision shall be served by the Applicant, or their representative, upon all leaseholders at the Property.

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) must seek permission to do so by making written [RESPONDENT] to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.

2. The [RESPONDENT] must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the [RESPONDENT] written reasons for the decision. Where possible you should send your further [RESPONDENT] for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal to deal with it more efficiently.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the [RESPONDENT] for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the [RESPONDENT] for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The [RESPONDENT] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the [RESPONDENT] is seeking.