Freeholder Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a freeholder to skip consulting the tenants about major works because the works were considered urgent and necessary. The decision was made without objections from the tenants and based on the freeholder's efforts to ensure the property's safety.
⚖️ Legal holding
A freeholder is entitled to dispense with the consultation requirements if the works are necessary and urgent.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to determine whether to dispense with consultation requirements for certain works or agreements if it is reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and 'qualifying long term agreement' as an agreement for over twelve months. The consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State regarding providing details, obtaining estimates, considering tenant proposals and observations, and giving reasons for actions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted the application to dispense with the consultation requirements for major works.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted an application by a freeholder to dispense with the consultation requirements for major works deemed necessary and urgent. The decision was based on the urgency and necessity of the works, as well as the lack of objections from the lessees.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AH/LDC/2019/0060 Property : 109 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : N/A Respondent : [redacted] [NAME] [COUNSEL] [ADDRESS] [NAME] : N/A Type of application : To dispense with the requimrent to consult lessees about major works Tribunal members : Judge Carr Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 24th June 2019
DECISION
2
Decision of the tribunal 1. The Tribunal determines to exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements contained in Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003. The application 2. [COMPANY], the freeholder of the premises, applied on 23rd April 2019 under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, for dispensation from the consultation requirements contained in Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003. Procedure 3. The Tribunal held a case management review of this matter on 25th April 2019 and issued directions on the same date. In those directions it was decided that in view of the nature of the application the matter should be determined on the basis of written representations and without an oral hearing.
4. The Directions gave an opportunity for any party to request an oral hearing. They also gave an opportunity for any leaseholder who wishes to oppose the application from the landlord to provide a statement to the Tribunal setting out his or her reasons for so doing. None of th parties requested an oral hearing, nor did any leaseholder object and therefore the matter is being determined on the basis of the documents provided. Determination The Evidence 5. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates as follows: (i) The property is detached Victorian house converted into 8 one-bedroom flats. (ii) Emergency works to remedy damp and water ingress were carried out to one half of the property in March and April 2019. The remainder of the works are due to be completed in July 2019.
3 (iii) The freeholder obtained reports from five builders before commencing the works. It decided that one company should address all root causes of damp and water ingress at the property, upgrading parts that contribute to this (by repair, upgrade or replacement) and in doing so make the house completely water tight. (iv) It selected Wren Builders to carry out the work having reviewed all reports and quotations and also following background searches of the companies. (v) The freehold company directors are all lessees of the property. They were unaware of the procedure required to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements but were concerned to repair the property as soon as possible to prevent further damage. (vi) Once the freeholder became aware of the procedure for dispensation it contacted all lessees notifying them of the application to dispense. (vii) No objections were received in connection with the application. The Law (i) The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under s.20ZA of the Act. The wording of s/20ZA is significant. Subs (1) 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 agreements, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements’ (emphasis added
The tribunal’s decision 6. The tribunal determines to grant the application. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision
4 7. The tribunal considers that the works are necessary and urgent. 8. The parties should note that this determination does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or indeed payable. The Respondents are able, if it appears to them to be appropriate, to make an application under s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as to reasonableness and payability.
Name: Judge Carr Date: 24th June 2019
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).
5 Appendix of relevant legislation
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 18 (1) In the following provisions of this Act "service charge" means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent - (a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or the landlord's costs of management, and (b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs. (2) The relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a superior landlord, in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable. (3) For this purpose - (a) "costs" includes overheads, and (b) costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period. Section 19 (1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period - (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provisions of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly. (2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise. Section 27A (1) An application may be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to - (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable,
6 (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) An application may also be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs and, if it would, as to - (a) the person by whom it would be payable, (b) the person to whom it would be payable, (c) the amount which would be payable, (d) the date at or by which it would be payable, and (e) the manner in which it would be payable. (4) No application under subsection (1) or (3) may be made in respect of a matter which - (a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment. Section 20 (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) 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. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement—
7 (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount. (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount. (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.] Section 20B (1) If any of the relevant costs taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge were incurred more than 18 months before a demand for payment of the service charge is served on the tenant, then (subject to subsection (2)), the tenant shall not be liable to pay so much of the service charge as reflects the costs so incurred. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if, within the period of 18 months beginning with the date when the relevant costs in question were incurred, the tenant was notified in writing that those costs had been incurred and that he would subsequently be required under the terms of his lease to contribute to them by the payment of a service charge. Section 20C (1) A tenant may make an application for an order that all or any of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with proceedings before a court, residential property tribunal or the Upper Tribunal, or in connection with arbitration proceedings, are
8 not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the tenant or any other person or persons specified in the application. (2) The application shall be made— (a) in the case of court proceedings, to the court before which the proceedings are taking place or, if the application is made after the proceedings are concluded, to a county court; (aa) in the case of proceedings before a residential property tribunal, to that tribunal; (b) in the case of proceedings before a residential property tribunal, to the tribunal before which the proceedings are taking place or, if the application is made after the proceedings are concluded, to any residential property tribunal; (c) in the case of proceedings before the Upper Tribunal, to the tribunal; (d) in the case of arbitration proceedings, to the arbitral tribunal or, if the application is made after the proceedings are concluded, to a county court. (3) The court or tribunal to which the application is made may make such order on the application as it considers just and equitable in the circumstances. Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Schedule 11, paragraph 1 (1) In this Part of this Schedule “administration charge” means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent which is payable, directly or indirectly— (a) for or in connection with the grant of approvals under his lease, or applications for such approvals, (b) for or in connection with the provision of information or documents by or on behalf of the landlord or a person who is party to his lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, (c) in respect of a failure by the tenant to make a payment by the due date to the landlord or a person who is party to his lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, or (d) in connection with a breach (or alleged breach) of a covenant or condition in his lease. (2) But an amount payable by the tenant of a dwelling the rent of which is registered under Part 4 of the Rent Act 1977 (c. 42) is not an administration charge, unless the amount registered is entered as a variable amount in pursuance of section 71(4) of that Act.
9 (3) In this Part of this Schedule “variable administration charge” means an administration charge payable by a tenant which is neither— (a) specified in his lease, nor (b) calculated in accordance with a formula specified in his lease. (4) An order amending sub-paragraph (1) may be made by the appropriate national authority. Schedule 11, paragraph 2 A variable administration charge is payable only to the extent that the amount of the charge is reasonable. Schedule 11, paragraph 5 (1) An application may be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether an administration charge is payable and, if it is, as to— (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) The jurisdiction conferred on the appropriate tribunal in respect of any matter by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) is in addition to any jurisdiction of a court in respect of the matter. (4) No application under sub-paragraph (1) may be made in respect of a matter which— (a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment. (6) An agreement by the tenant of a dwelling (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination— (a) in a particular manner, or
10 (b) on particular evidence, of any question which may be the subject matter of an application under sub-paragraph (1).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Damp Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freeholder Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Structural Wo…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freeholder Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freeholder Granted Permission for Urgent Works Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freeholder Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freeholder Granted Exemption for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Health and Safety Works - First-ti…
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 works are deemed necessary and urgent.
- The Tribunal finds it reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements due to urgent health and safety concerns.
- Works cannot be carried out by multiple suppliers due to proprietary systems.
- Urgent works fall under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
- Freeholders are entitled to dispense with consultation requirements if the works are urgent and reasonable.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified as leading to a decision against the claimant in the provided cases.)
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision allowed the freeholder to skip consulting the tenants about major works.
Who was involved?
The freeholder and the tenants of a property were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the application because the works were deemed necessary and urgent, and there were no objections from the tenants.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the necessity and urgency of the works.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the freeholder who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might also be able to skip consulting tenants if their works are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included reports from builders and the lack of objections from tenants.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
