First-tier Tribunal Rejects Landlord's Request for Dispensation from Consultation Requirements

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/26UF/LDC/2025/0684 Property : [ADDRESS], [APPELLANT] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT] (Agent) Respondents :

[redacted] contribute at the Property

Representative : None Landlord : [APPELLANT] of Application :

S2oZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - dispensation of consultation requirements

Tribunal : [COMPANY] :

First tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision : 5 December 2025 DECISION

2 Decision

1. The Tribunal does NOT grant dispensation from the requirements on the applicant to consult all [NAME] under S.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the qualifying works referred to.

2. At the date of application it was stated that construction work had been started and even completed. (Form Leasehold 5 Box 6.2). It was understood that the applicant’s agent acting for the applicant, was able to recharge costs under the service charge provisions to all [NAME] in the Property.

Background

3. The applicant is the freeholder and landlord acting through the [NAME] agent, under the leases and is seeking, from the Tribunal under [POSTCODE] of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) dispensation from all or any of the consultation requirements under S.20 of the Act, of [NAME] of related dwellings, who might be liable for service charge contributions arising from works.

4. This application appeared to concern urgent works to remedy leaks to guttering, roof eaves and down pipes connected on a communal roof on which other work is in hand. The work followed ongoing works of decoration to the exterior of the Property.

Directions

5. Directions dated 6 October 2025 amended 24 October 2025, were issued without an oral hearing by Legal [NAME]. They identified that the respondents were the [NAME] of the various dwellings – 4No. maisonettes at the Property. The Directions provided for the Tribunal to determine the application on or after 5 December 2025, unless a party applied by 14 November 2025 for a hearing.

6. The applicant was to send to each of the [NAME] of the dwellings at the Property at least; a copy of the application form, brief description of the works, an estimate of the costs of the works including any professional fees and VAT and anything else relied upon, with a copy of the Directions.

7. The applicant was to file with the Tribunal a letter by 31 October 2025, confirming how and when it had been done.

8. [NAME] who objected to the application were to send a reply form and statement to the Tribunal and applicant, by 14 November 2025. The applicant was to prepare a bundle of documents including the application form, Directions, sample lease and all other documents on which they

3 wanted to rely; all responses from [NAME], a certificate of compliance referred to above; with two copies to the Tribunal and one to each [NAME] by 21 November 2025.

9. In the event, the Tribunal did not receive any requests for a hearing, nor did it receive any forms in support of or objection to respondents either directly or indirectly via the bundle.

10. The Tribunal determined the case on the bundle received from the applicant, only.

Applicant’s Case

11. The application Form Leasehold 5, dated 23 September 2025, at box 2.3 appears to confirm that the Property is a small low rise, block of 4No. maisonettes. The application referred to a short list of the names of the [NAME].

12. The application at box 6.1 confirmed that these are to be qualifying works, and that they had been carried out at the date of application, box 6.2. They were not part of a long term contract. At box 8 the applicant was content for paper determination and that it was not urgent.

13. The application at ‘[NAME]’, at Box 6.5.1 stated: “Section 20 consultation has been carried out for external redecorations to include works to the guttering. However there are additional works required to the guttered whereby the guttering is required to be replaced, as this is rotten and is no longer for purposes, therefore whilst the scaffolding is up and to avoid any water ingress entering any properties as a result of the effective guttering is more economically viable to have the gutter replaced now, instead of paying for additional scaffolding costs to have the gutter replace in the future. The cost the additional works are for the sum f£1850.”

14. The application at ‘[NAME]’ Box 6.5.2, described the consultation that had been carried out or is proposed to be carried out. “Section 20 consultation has been carried out for external redecorations to include works to the guttering. However there are additional works required to the guttered where the guttering is required t be replaced as this rotten and is no longer for purpose. We have emailed all [NAME] seeking there approval to the additional works also.”

15. The application at ‘[NAME]’ Box 6.5.3, explained why they sought dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements. “The costs of the replacement gutters works (The additional works) will cost £1850 in which will exceed the section 20 threshold.”

4

16. A copy of a sample completed lease dated 13 April 1995 between of ‘Flat 1’ at the Property between the then landlord [NAME] and an [NAME] at the time.

17. The bundle included at page No.27 of the bundle a quotation, printed off 14 September 2025. The reference is illegible. It is from “WLP (Building) ‘Building & Refurbishment)(Specialists) (Interior & Exterior Decorating Contractors)”. It is headed “(Quotation for Exterior Guttering on 79 Woodstreet flats)”. It is otherwise undated.

18. The work is to remove the existing old leaking guttering, joints and clips. To replace same with new brown guttering to all areas and to add some new felt to the lowest row of roof tiles to encourage rainwater run off into the new gutters rather than to down the back of them as current. To remove all old materials removed and clear the site. It appears to be for a total of £1850; there is no reference to VAT.

19. If the applicant included a list of names and addresses of [NAME] names affected by the expenditure it was not seen by this Tribunal in the bundle. If the applicant had confirmed what they had sent, including Directions, to all of these potential respondents and when, the Tribunal did not receive it before determining the application.

Respondent’s Case

20. The applicant, despite repeated requests for and grant of a short extension of the timetable failed to confirm back to the Tribunal what had been sent to the [NAME] and when as required by the Tribunal in its earlier Directions.

21. The Tribunal did not receive any objections or other representations from the [NAME], either through the applicant, or directly.

The Law

22. S.18 (1) of the Act provides that a service charge is an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent, which is payable for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or landlord’s costs of management, and the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the costs incurred by the landlord. S.20 provides for the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutory consultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250 can be recovered from a tenant in respect of such works unless the consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed

5 with. For long term contracts, the cap on contributions from [NAME] is £100 per annum.

23. Dispensation is dealt with by S.20 ZA of the Act which provides:- “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 long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.”

24. Dispensation is dealt with by S.20 ZA of the Act which provides:- “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 long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.”

25. The consultation requirements for qualifying works under qualifying long term agreements are set out in detail at Schedule 3 of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

26. The consultation requirements for qualifying works for which public notice is not required are set out in detail at Schedule 4 of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

Tribunal’s Decision

27. The scheme of the provisions is designed to protect the interests of [NAME] and whether it is reasonable to dispense with any particular requirements in an individual case must be considered in relation to the scheme of the provisions and its purpose.

28. The Tribunal must have a cogent reason for dispensing with the consultation requirements, the purpose of which is that [NAME] who may ultimately pay the bill are fully aware of what works are being proposed, the cost thereof and have the opportunity to nominate contractors where there is no public procurement.

29. The correspondence showed that the applicant failed to comply with simple Directions in a timely manner even after being granted an extension of time to do so. In their (final) email of 19 November 2025 to the Tribunal, they wrote “Please find attached a copy of the indexed bundle as outlined in the ‘Bundle for the determination‘ section of the directions, we have not issue this to the [NAME] as no [NAME]

6 opposed the application.” Although there was no need for the applicant to send a copy of the bundle to any [NAME] who had not objected, the Tribunal did not receive a prior positive confirmation in writing from the agent that a copy of the Directions (Tribunal email 23 October 2025, to the agent) had been sent to all [NAME] irrespective of objection, or when.

30. The application was not particularly involved and should have been simple for the applicant to complete in a competent and timely manner but, it failed to do so even after a time extension. For these reasons dispensation is refused.

31. It was noted by the Tribunal that any other cost of investigating and repairing the roof gutters, eaves felt and downpipes was not the subject of this application. If those works were also completed for the landlord then their cost also lies outside of this dispensation application.

32. These works, their extent, quality, and price remain subject to subsequent challenge by any [NAME], both of the item itself and/or the amount reasonably payable, in the usual way. No items are included or given dispensation because they were not specifically sought or hereby refused. All of these costs including any professional fees associated with the work will be subject to the annual cap of £250 per [NAME] for a contract for works rechargeable under a service charge or to a further application for dispensation if required. This is because they do not form part of this application for dispensation. Other works essentially decorating completed beforehand are apparently the subject of valid prior consultation and are separate and unaffected by this decision.

33. The applicant will meet all of its costs arising from the making and determination of this application. However these costs can be recovered from any [NAME] as service charge and/ or as an administrative charge if the lease of each unit allows for it, subject to the usual scope for [NAME] challenge to its reasonableness and payability.

34. In making its determination of this application, it does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs are reasonable or indeed payable by the [NAME]. The Tribunal’s determination is limited to this application for dispensation of consultation requirements under [POSTCODE] of the Act; in this case, refused.

[NAME]

5 December 2025

7

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision.

Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).

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.

The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., 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.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).