Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a landlord could skip the usual consultation process for urgent fire safety works. This decision ensures the safety of residents in a building with dangerous cladding materials.
⚖️ Legal holding
In cases involving urgent fire safety works, a landlord may be exempt from statutory consultation requirements if the works are necessary to ensure occupier safety.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to determine that consultation requirements can be waived if it is reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and outlines the types of consultation requirements that can be prescribed by regulations.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass consultation requirements due to urgent fire safety concerns.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) allowed the landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent fire safety works, ensuring the safety of the property's occupants. The works involve removing and replacing external cladding due to identified combustible materials.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
Case Reference : MAN/00CX/LDC/2020/0049 P
[NAME] : [ADDRESS]
[POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT]
Respondents : [redacted]
[NAME] (see Annex)
Representative
: N/A
Type of Application : Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
- section 20ZA
Tribunal Members : Judge J [NAME] and venue of : Determined without a hearing Hearing
Date of Decision : 20 January 2021
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] ([NAME])
2 DECISION
Compliance with the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is dispensed with in relation to works comprising the removal and replacement of external cladding to the [NAME] for fire safety reasons. A more detailed description of these works is given in paragraph 4 below.
REASONS
Background
1. On 11 November 2020, an application was made to the First-tier Tribunal ([NAME]) (“the Tribunal”) under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) for a determination to dispense with the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Act. Those requirements (“the consultation requirements”) are set out in the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”).
2. The application was made by [APPELLANT[COMPANY] and relates to premises known as [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the [NAME]”). The Applicant is the [APPELLANT] company under the long leases of the residential apartments within the [NAME]. The [NAME] are the long leaseholders of those apartments. A list of the Respondents is set out in the Annex hereto.
3. The only issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements.
4. The works in respect of which a dispensation is sought concern fire safety works to the exterior of the [NAME] which the Applicant says are urgently required to safeguard the occupiers of the [NAME]. We note from a schedule of the proposed works which was attached to the application that they comprise the following:
• All elements of the existing cladding including timber bearers and insulation are to be removed from the building and disposed of safely; • A new cladding system comprising cladding panels fixed to aluminium bearers together with a layer of insulation and associated fire barriers to be fixed to the building; and • The new cladding system to be fully in accordance with the recommendations of [NAME] and in compliance with the current Building Regulations.
3 5. Each of the Respondents has been given notice of the application and afforded the opportunity to view the Applicant’s supporting evidence online. They have also been provided with a copy of the case [APPELLANT] directions issued by the Tribunal on 16 December 2020. The directions required any Respondent who opposed the application to notify the Tribunal of their objection by 8 January 2021. No such notification has been received and we have determined this matter following a consideration of the Applicant’s, but without holding a hearing. Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 permits a case to be dealt with in this manner provided that the parties give their consent (or do not object when a paper determination is proposed). In this case, the Applicant has given its consent and the Respondents have not objected. Moreover, having reviewed the case papers, we are satisfied that this matter is indeed suitable to be determined without a hearing: although the Respondents are not legally represented, the application is unopposed and the issues to be decided are readily apparent.
6. The Tribunal did not inspect the [NAME] but we understand it to comprise a purpose-built eight storey building in mixed residential and commercial use. The external walls are generally natural stonework with areas of cladding.
Grounds for the application
7. The Applicant’s case is that an intrusive survey has been carried out at the [NAME] and has identified combustible materials forming part of the external wall construction. These materials include timber framing and Kingspan Thermawall TW55 insulation which has a polyiscyanurate (PIR) core. In addition. in the area surveyed there were no cavity barriers provided in the wall cavities around window openings or at slab level. The presence of combustible materials in the external wall, in conjunction with a lack of barrier in the cavity wall, significantly increases the risk of fire spread across the [NAME] and remedial works are required to be carried out as soon as possible. The Applicant says that the proposed works are urgent and are necessary in order to resolve the current position regarding fire safety at the [NAME].
8. In addition, the Applicant is submitting detailed proposals to the Government's [NAME] to seek grant funding for the remediation works and considers it to be impractical to comply with the statutory consultation requirements given the permitted timescales for obtaining such funding.
Law
9. Section 18 of the Act defines what is meant by “service charge”. It also defines the expression “relevant costs” as:
4 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.
10. Section 19 of the Act limits the amount of any relevant costs which may be included in a service charge to costs which are reasonably incurred, and section 20(1) provides:
Where this section applies to any qualifying works … the relevant contributions of tenants are limited … unless the consultation requirements have been either– (a) complied with in relation to the works … or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works … by the appropriate tribunal.
11. “Qualifying works” for this purpose are works on a building or any other premises (section 20ZA(2) of the Act), and section 20 applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00 (section 20(3) of the Act and regulation 6 of the Regulations).
12. Section 20ZA(1) of the Act provides:
Where an application is made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works … the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.
13. Reference should be made to the Regulations themselves for full details of the applicable consultation requirements. In outline, however, they require a landlord (or [APPELLANT] company) to:
• give written notice of its intention to carry out qualifying works, inviting leaseholders to make observations and to nominate contractors from whom an estimate for carrying out the works should be sought;
• obtain estimates for carrying out the works, and supply leaseholders with a statement setting out, as regards at least two of those estimates, the amount specified as the estimated cost of the proposed works, together with a summary of any initial observations made by leaseholders;
• make all the estimates available for inspection; invite leaseholders to make observations about them; and then to have regard to those observations;
5 • give written notice to the leaseholders within 21 days of entering into a contract for the works explaining why the contract was awarded to the preferred bidder if that is not the person who submitted the lowest estimate.
Conclusions
14. The Tribunal must decide whether it is reasonable for the works to go ahead without the Applicant first complying with the consultation requirements. Those requirements are intended to ensure a degree of transparency and accountability when a landlord (or [APPELLANT] company) decides to undertake qualifying works – the requirements ensure that leaseholders have the opportunity to know about, and to comment on, decisions about major works before those decisions are taken. It is reasonable that the consultation requirements should be complied with unless there are good reasons for dispensing with all or any of them on the facts of a particular case.
15. It follows that, for it to be appropriate to dispense with the consultation requirements, there needs to be a good reason why the works cannot be delayed until the requirements have been complied with. The Tribunal must weigh the balance of prejudice between, on the one hand, the need for swift remedial action to ensure that occupiers of the [NAME] are not placed at undue risk and, on the other hand, the legitimate interests of the leaseholders in being properly consulted before major works begin. It must consider whether this balance favours allowing the works to be undertaken immediately (without consultation), or whether it favours prior consultation in the usual way (with the inevitable delay in carrying out the works which that will require). The balance is likely to be tipped in favour of dispensation in a case in which there is an urgent need for remedial or preventative action, or where all the leaseholders consent to the grant of a dispensation.
16. In the present case, it is obvious that essential works to ensure the safety of the [NAME] and its occupiers should be undertaken as soon as possible: this is appropriate not only to minimise risk to the health and safety of the occupiers of the [NAME], but also to maximise the chances of obtaining grant funding for the works in question. We have no hesitation in finding that the balance of prejudice favours permitting such works to proceed without delay.
17. Nevertheless, the fact that the Tribunal has granted dispensation from the consultation requirements should not be taken as an indication that we consider that the amount of the anticipated service charges resulting from the works is likely to be reasonable; or, indeed, that such charges will be payable by the Respondents. We make no findings in that regard.
6 ANNEX (List of Respondents)
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME].[NAME]. [NAME]
Ms [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME] Mrs [NAME]. A. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME] Mr [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. L. [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] Mr [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME] Ms [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr & Mrs [NAME]. & [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr & Mrs P. & A. [NAME]
Mr & Mrs [NAME] [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] Mr [NAME]. L. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]. B. [NAME] [COMPANY]
Mr [NAME]. J. [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]. E. [NAME] Mr [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME]. J. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] Ms [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]
Miss [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]
Prof [NAME]. [NAME]
Miss [NAME]. [NAME]
Miss [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME] & Mr [NAME]. [NAME] Mr [NAME]. D. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME]
Mrs [NAME]. G. [NAME]
Mr [NAME]. [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]. [NAME]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Bypass of Consultation for Urgent Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Exemption from Consultation Requirements for Urgent Fire S…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Fire Safety Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Boiler Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Without Leasehol…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Boiler Replacement Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Flat Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Proceed with Urgent Fire Safety Works Without Consultin…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Urgent Roof Repairs Without Consultation
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 building's external walls contained combustible materials and lacked cavity barriers, increasing fire spread risk.
- Urgent remedial works were needed to resolve fire safety issues and safeguard occupiers.
- Dispensing with consultation was necessary to maximize the chances of obtaining grant funding for the works.
- The balance of prejudice favored allowing the works to proceed without delay due to the urgent safety need.
- No leaseholders objected to the application for dispensation, and the applicant consented to a paper determination.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision allowed the landlord to bypass the consultation requirements for urgent fire safety works.
Who was involved?
The landlord of a multi-story building and the residential leaseholders of the apartments within the building.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord could bypass the consultation requirements because the works were urgent and necessary for fire safety.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The urgency and necessity of the fire safety works to protect the residents of the building.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to bypass consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary for safety.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the dangerous cladding materials and the need for urgent fire safety works.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is recommended to get legal advice from a solicitor for a case like this.
