Freeholder Granted Dispensation for Damp-Proofing Works Without Full Consultation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2025/0916 Property : 20A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : [NAME] (managing agent) Respondents : [redacted] Representative : N/A Type of application : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 23 February 2026

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants the applicant the dispensation sought pursuant to

s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of damp-proofing

works to the basement at [ADDRESS], London W10

6NU which were completed in 2024.

The application 1. The applicant seeks the tribunal’s dispensation pursuant to s.20ZA of the

Landlord and Tenant Act 12985 in respect of damp-proofing works to

the basement [NAME] at the subject property known as 20 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the property’).

The hearing 2. The application was determined on the 5 digital bundles provided by the

applicant totalling 124 pages as neither party requested an oral hearing. The background 3. The property which is the subject of this application is a converted semi-

detached property comprising 5 self-contained flats on basement,

ground, first and second floors. 4. The [NAME] of the basement [NAME] informed the applicant of damp

issues to the internal face of the exterior wall/s within the [NAME]. The

applicant asserts a Notice of Intention dated 02/02/2024 was served on

the respondents and two estimates for the works were obtained as part

of the tender process. 5. However, due to increasing urgency of the works to be remedied, the

respondent carried them out without following the full consultation

process. The works are said to have been completed in 2024 by ___ at

a cost of ___. The issues 6. The only issue for the tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with

statutory consultation requirements. This application does not concern

the issue of whether any service charge costs are reasonable or are

payable although these issues may be raised in the appropriate

application. The applicant’s case

3 7. At the request of a [NAME], the applicant obtained 2 report and

quotations from [APPELLANT] dated 7 November 2023 for all remedial

work in the estimated sum of £18,740.00 (exc. VAT) or £10,985.00 (exc.

VAT). However, the cause of the damp (defective plumbing) was stated

as not being within the scope of works offered by [APPELLANT]. A further

report was obtained by the applicant from PROKILL (damp and timber

specialists) dated 4 June 2024. This report quoted the sum of £11,770.00

(inc. VAT). A further quotation was obtained from [COMPANY] dated 21 August 2024which estimated a total sum of

£30,348.00 (inc. VAT). 8. The applicant subsequently commissioned [APPELLANT] to carry out the remedial works and informed the respondent

[NAME] of this decision on 11/07/2025 as well as providing a copy

of the report and an apportionment of the costs to be charges to the

[NAME] as service charges. The respondents’ case 9. A number of the [NAME] provided the tribunal with written

objections dated 14 December 2025 to the works carried out which can

be summarised as follows:

(i) None of the [NAME] received the Notice of Intention dated 2

February 2024. It was seen for the first time on 26September

2025 after completion of the works.

(ii) The [NAME] were unaware of the damp problem in the

basement [NAME] other than the [NAME].

(iii) The [NAME] had no opportunity to comment on the scope or

cost of the works or nominate a contractor.

(iv) The cost of the works charged to the [NAME] of £26,000 is

substantial for a small building.

(v) The works were not urgent and there was no evidence of any

sudden deterioration or immediate risk. Therefore, the full

consultation process could have been followed by the applicant. The tribunal’s decision 10. The tribunal determines it is reasonable to grant the dispensation from

consultation sought by the applicant in respect of damp works to the

basement of the subject property. The tribunal’s reasons

4

11. In reaching its decision the tribunal had regard to all of the material

provided by the parties. However, neither party provided the tribunal

with any witness statement either in support of or in objection to the

application. The tribunal also had regard to the relevant statutory

s.20 provision which states:

(1)Where this section applies to any qualifying works or

qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of

tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or

both) unless the consultation requirements have been either—

(a)complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or

(b)except in the case of works to which section 20D applies,

dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on

appeal from) the appropriate tribunal.

(2)In this section “relevant contribution,” in relation to a tenant

and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be

required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the

payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on

carrying out the works or under the agreement.

(3)This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs

incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate

amount. 12. The tribunal also had regard to the leading authority on the issue of

dispensation from s.20 consultation; [COMPANY] v

[NAME], 2013] UKSC 14 & [2013] UKSC 54 13. In this instance the tribunal finds the respondents have failed to identify

or demonstrate any prejudice they have suffered as a consequence of the

consultation requirements not being fully followed. The tribunal finds

the [NAME] were on the balance of probabilities served with the

Notice of Intention, as one [NAME] expressly replied to it with the

name of a contractor they would like to provide an estimate. 14. Further, the respondents did not provide the tribunal with any

independent evidence by way of a further quotation from another

contractor, querying the scope or cost of the works carried out on behalf

of the applicant. The objections provided by the [NAME] contain little

detail in respect of any prejudice they have suffered from the lack of

consultation.

5 15. The tribunal finds there were damp issues to the basement area which

required remediation. As an expert tribunal, the tribunal finds the

longer these works were required, the more damage was likely to be

caused to the structure of the building and the more extensive they were

likely to become. 16. The tribunal finds a landlord is not required to accept the cheapest quote

as in some instances a higher quote may deal with more extensive works

that are required to definitely resolve the initial source of dampness and

reinstate the premises. In this instance, the tribunal would have been

assisted by a Statement from the applicant as to the reasons for choosing

the contractor ultimately used. However, in the absence of this

statement, the tribunal finds ha after consideration of the various

quotations provided, that there are differences between them as to the

extent of the works required and whether they include or exclude VAT @

20%. 17. In conclusion, the tribunal finds the respondents have failed to identify

any prejudice caused to them as a result of the lack of consultation and

therefore grants the application form dispensation.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 23 February 2026

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 a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The application should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

6 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).