VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Freeholder Granted Dispensation from Consultation Requirements for Gas and Electricity Agreements

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a a person to bypass the usual consultation process for new gas and electricity contracts, citing significant cost savings. This means the a person can now implement these contracts without needing to consult all tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

The tribunal may dispense with consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if it is reasonable to do so and no prejudice is shown.

Topics

dispensation from consultation requirementsLandlord and Tenant Act 1985

Provisions

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

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant permission to skip consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that landlords must follow when proposing works or long-term agreements. These rules can vary based on specific cases and purposes.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for long-term agreements on gas and electricity, citing the lack of opposition and absence of demonstrated prejudice.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for long-term agreements for gas and electricity to a freeholder, allowing the freeholder to bypass statutory consultation processes due to the significant cost savings achieved.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/26UK/LDC/2022/0031 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : P:PAPERREMOTE Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant

Representative

:

:

[APPELLANT] [NAME]

Respondents : [redacted] property (including any of their sub- tenants of any such dwelling) who are liable to contribute to the cost of the relevant agreements Type of application : For dispensation from consultation requirements - Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : [APPELLANT] [NAME](Hons) Date of decision : 19 October 2022

DECISION

Description of hearing This has been a remote determination on the papers which the parties are taken to have consented to, as explained below. The form of determination was P:PAPERREMOTE. A hearing was not held because it was not necessary, and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents that I was referred to are in an unpaginated electronic bundle from the Applicant. I have noted the contents and my decision is below.

2 The tribunal’s decision The tribunal determines under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of qualifying long-term agreements for gas and electricity to the development Reasons for the tribunal’s decision The application (1) [NAME] seeks retrospective dispensation with the statutory consultation requirements in respect of qualifying long-term agreements for gas and electricity in respect of the 143 residential units in the development. (2) The relevant contributions of [NAME] through the service charge towards the costs under these agreements would be limited to a fixed sum unless the statutory consultation requirements, prescribed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the “1985 Act”) and the Service Charges (Consultation etc) (England) Regulations 2003: (i) were complied with; or (ii) are dispensed with by the tribunal. (3) In this application, the Applicant seeks a determination from the tribunal, under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act, to dispense with the consultation requirements. The tribunal has jurisdiction to grant such dispensation if satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. (4) The only issue here for the tribunal is whether it is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements (5) This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs under the relevant agreements will be reasonable or payable or by whom they are payable. The Property and parties (6) The applicant says the property consists of 40 social housing units, 8 commercial units and 103 private flats. The application is made in respect of the residential units (7) The application is made by [RESPONDENT] on behalf of the landlord, [COMPANY]. The application was made against the [NAME] of the relevant flats (the “Respondents”)

3 Procedural history (8) The Applicant says that retrospective dispensation is sought, as explained below. (9) Initial case management directions were given on 31 August 2022. The directions included a reply form for any leaseholder who objected to the application to return to the tribunal and the Applicant, also indicating whether they wished to have an oral hearing. Any such objecting leaseholder was required to respond 28 September 2022. (10) The directions further provided that this matter would be determined on or after 19 October 2022 based on the documents, without a hearing, unless any party requested an oral hearing (11) The applicant wrote to the [NAME] on 14 September 2022. No responses were received by the tribunal from [NAME] and a hearing was not requested. (12) On reviewing these documents, the tribunal considered that an inspection of the Property was neither necessary nor proportionate to the issues to be determined and that a hearing was not necessary. The Applicant’s case (13) Documentation provided by the Applicant states that the gas contract for the development ended on 30 August 2022, and the three electricity contracts ended on 30 September 2022. [NAME], as managing agent approached 2 energy brokers. (14) Having got a response from both brokers on 4th August 2022 it became clear that there was a significant cost saving (totalling approx. £62k per annum) of signing multiple year versus 12-month contracts. Following a Board Meeting it was agreed that, given the significant saving they would seek 24-month contracts which have since been signed. (15) The applicant considered that, given the state of the energy market, it was not viable to carry out a consultation on the long-term agreements as contracts would need to be signed on the day they were issued. It was felt to be in the best interest of the [NAME] to go ahead and sign the 24-month contracts and retrospective dispensation was therefore needed. The Respondents’ position (16) As mentioned above, the directions provided for any Respondent who wished to oppose the application for dispensation to complete the reply form attached to the directions and send it to the tribunal and the Applicant.

4 (17) The tribunal has not received any response or statement of case opposing the application, or comments on the Applicant’s statements in the application form. In the circumstances, the tribunal concluded that the application was unopposed Determination (18) Following the Supreme Court decision of Daejan Investments Ltd. v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, the only issue for the Tribunal is whether the Respondents have suffered prejudice in dispensing with the requirements. (19) This application for dispensation from the consultation requirements was not opposed by the Respondents, who have not challenged the information provided by the Applicant in the application form, identified any prejudice which they might suffer because of the non- compliance with the consultation requirements, nor asked to be provided with any other information. (20) The tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in relation to the long-term agreements for gas and electricity. (21) It therefore determines under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with all relevant consultation requirements in relation to these agreements. (22) This is not an application for the tribunal to approve the reasonableness of the contracts or the reasonableness, apportionment or payability of any service charge demand. (23) I make no finding in that regard and the [NAME] will continue to be able to make an application under section 27A of the Act in respect of the reasonableness of the agreements and/or the reasonableness, apportionment or payability of the service charge demand for them. (24) There was no application to the tribunal for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. (25) The Applicant shall be responsible for serving a copy of this decision on all [NAME].

[NAME] [NAME](Hons) 19 October 2022

5

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 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. 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).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

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 significant cost savings of signing long-term contracts were recognized as beneficial for the tenants.
  • No objections or challenges to the information provided by the applicant were raised by the respondents.
  • The state of the energy market made it impractical to consult tenants before signing the contracts.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant dispensation from consultation requirements for long-term agreements for gas and electricity.

Who was involved?

The decision involved a freeholder and leaseholders of residential units.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because it was deemed reasonable and in the best interest of the leaseholders due to significant cost savings.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation etc) (England) Regulations 2003 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the significant cost savings achieved by entering into longer-term contracts.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be able to bypass the consultation process if they can demonstrate significant cost savings.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of significant cost savings and the impracticality of carrying out a consultation on the day the contracts were issued mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.

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

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property and leaseholder rights.

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.