VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent and Necessary Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to carry out urgent and necessary repairs without consulting the a person, as no objections were raised and the cost was covered by the a person.

⚖️ Legal holding

The tribunal granted dispensation based on the urgency and necessity of the works, adhering to the requirements under the relevant section of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent and necessary worksLandlord and Tenant Act 1985

Provisions

s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and 'qualifying long term agreement' as an agreement lasting over twelve months. The consultation requirements can include providing details of proposed works to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenants to suggest estimators, considering tenant observations, and giving reasons for certain actions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for the replacement of the front step, despite initial concerns over cost, as the works were deemed urgent and necessary.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for the replacement and fitting of the front step to the communal front entrance, deemed urgent and necessary, under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The leaseholders did not raise any objections.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BE/LDC/2024/0217 Property : 26 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] schedule attached to the [NAME] : N/A Type of [NAME] : Dispensation from consultation – s.20ZA of the Landlord ND Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 26 November 2024

DECISION

2 The tribunal’s decision 1. In so far as this [NAME] may still be required by the applicant, the tribunal grants the applicant dispensation from consultation pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the replacement and fitting of the front step to the communal front entrance by [COMPANY] at a cost of £825.00. The [NAME]

2. The subject premises comprises an Edwardian house converted into four long leasehold flats on 3 storeys with front and rear communal gardens.

3. The [NAME] has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of works for a replacement step leading to the communal entrance door. The [NAME] advised that the works were previously carried out inadequately by other contractors. Those original inadequate works are not being charged to the [NAME]. However, due to increased costs by the new contractors, this [NAME] for dispensation from consultation has been made. However, it appears that since the contractor (GBS) price matched the lowest quote, the works for which dispensation is sought appear to total less than the £250 per lessee limit payable for works where no consultation has been carried out it appears this [NAME] may no longer be required as the £825.00 cost of the works are payable in full by the [NAME] in any event.

The hearing 4. Neither party requested an oral hearing and therefore, the tribunal made its determination from the documents provided which included a hearing bundle of 37 electronic pages. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 5. The tribunal is satisfied this [NAME] was brought to the attention of the [NAME]. Of these, [NAME] objected to the cost of the completed works and queried why the lowest price had not been accepted by the applicant. On the contractor agreeing to match the lowest quote, this [NAME] was satisfied with this response and no further objections were made or received by the applicant or the tribunal to this [NAME].

6. The tribunal is satisfied that the replacement/repair works to the front entrance step were both urgent and necessary. In the absence of any objection to this [NAME] for dispensation from consultation, or the identification of any substantive prejudice caused to the respondents, the tribunal determines it is appropriate to grant the dispensation sought

3 by the applicant; [APPELLANT] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14 & [2013] UKSC 54.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 26 November 2024

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 [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] 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 works are urgent and necessary.
  • Leaseholders did not object to the works.
  • No substantial prejudice is identified for leaseholders.
  • Works comply with section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for the replacement and fitting of the front step to the communal entrance door.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, while the leaseholders were notified but did not object.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and necessary, and there were no objections from the leaseholders.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the works were urgent and necessary, and the leaseholders did not object.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can apply for dispensation from consultation if their works are urgent and necessary and there are no objections from the leaseholders.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgency and necessity of the works, and confirmation that the leaseholders did not object, mattered.

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 cases involving property management 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.