Landlord Granted Dispensation from Consulting Leaseholders About Major Electrical Works

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : HAV/43UL/LDC/2025/0742 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] Representative : None Type of application : To dispense with the requirements to consult lessees about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Tribunal members : [NAME]. Venue : Havant Justice Centre, [ADDRESS], Havant, Portsmouth. Date of decision : 8 January 2026

DECISION

Summary of the Decision

1. The Applicant is granted dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of major electrical works, as set out in paragraph 2 below.

The application and the history of the case

2

2. The Applicant applied by an application received 21 October 2025 for dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) from the consultation requirements imposed by Section 20 of the Act in respect of major works. The Applicant explains that; “the 5-year periodic inspection was carried out earlier in 2025 and works were identified as being urgent, it has taken some time to obtain quotes to complete not just the required works but also the recommended items within the report”. The works are described as “works to be supplied by [COMPANY] following quotes for same from 2 contractors.

Block 1-5: Supply & fit new isolator and distribution board. Replace surge suppression [sic] and time clock. Install main earth bonds Re-wire existing bollards and external lighting (trench works to be supplied by different contractor) Supply 3 pedestal lantern and one wall mounted coach lantern Block 6-10: All of the above and add 2 tubular heaters to replace the existing Trench works to be supplied by [NAME] following quotes received for same from two contractors. Directors have verbally informed all resident owners within 1-12 of these works.”

“Dispensation is sought because:

The works are of an urgent nature as detailed within NICEIC report carried out by [COMPANY].

Directors and residents do not wish to leave this work during the Winter months whilst a regular Section 20 process would take place as the electric cupboards are external and the cold weather could exacerbate the situation.

The applicant supplied four quotes from different contractors for the works.”

3. The only issue for the Tribunal in this application is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application is not about the proposed costs of the works, and whether they are recoverable from the leaseholders as service charges or the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022.

4. The property is said to comprise; Block 1-5 a converted detached period building converted into leasehold apartments converted circa 1998/1999 housing 5 leasehold apartments, Block 6-10 is a purpose-built block of 5 flats with a flat roof, houses 11 and 12 are cojoined to Block 1-5 but have their own entrances.

5. Directions were issued on 30 October 2025 setting a timetable for the exchange of documents for the application for dispensation and directing at

3 paragraph 5 that authority to act was required for [APPELLANT] to act on behalf of the applicant. This was subsequently received on 12 November 2025.

6. The 30 October 2025 Directions required the Respondents to complete a reply form by 11 November 2025 if and why they oppose the application. By email dated 20 November 2025, [NAME] [NAME], of [COMPANY], confirmed that as at that date no objections to the application had been received by them.

7. The remaining leaseholders either responded with no objection or did not respond, those leaseholders who did not respond are assumed to have no objection to the application.

8. The Directions at paragraph 14 stated that the application is to be determined on the papers without a hearing in accordance with rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013 unless a party objects in writing to the Tribunal within 7 days of the date of receipt of these Directions. No such objection has been received.

The Law

9. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) and the related Regulations provide that where the [NAME] undertakes qualifying works with a cost of more than £250 per lease the relevant contribution of each [NAME] (jointly where more than one under any given lease) will be limited to that sum unless the required consultations have been undertaken or the requirement has been dispensed with by the Tribunal. An application may be made retrospectively.

10. Section 20ZA provides that on an application to dispense with any or all of the consultation requirements, the Tribunal may make a determination granting such dispensation “if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”.

11. The appropriate approach to be taken by the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v Benson et al [2013] UKSC 14.

12. The leading judgment of Lord [NAME] explained that a Tribunal should focus on the question of whether the [NAME] will be or had been prejudiced in either paying where that was not appropriate or in paying more than appropriate because the failure of the [NAME] to comply with the regulations. The requirements were held to give practical effect to those two objectives and were “a means to an end, not an end in themselves”.

13. The factual burden of demonstrating prejudice falls on the [NAME]. The [NAME] must identify what would have been said if able to engage in a consultation process. If the [NAME] advances a credible case for having been prejudiced, the [NAME] must rebut it. The Tribunal should be sympathetic to the [NAME](s).

14. Where the extent, quality and cost of the works were in no way affected by the [NAME]’s failure to comply, Lord [NAME] said as follows: “I find it hard to see why the dispensation should not be granted (at least in the absence of some

4 very good reason): in such a case the tenants would be in precisely the position that the legislation intended them to be- i.e. as if the requirements had been complied with.”

15. The “main, indeed normally, the sole question”, as described by Lord [NAME], for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether, or not, the [NAME] will be or has been caused relevant prejudice by a failure of the Applicant to undertake the consultation prior to the major works and so whether dispensation in respect of that should be granted.

16. The question is one of the reasonableness of dispensing with the process of consultation provided for in the Act, not one of the reasonableness of the charges of works arising or which have arisen.

17. If dispensation is granted, that may be on terms. That is to say that dispensation is granted but only if the landlord accepts- and fulfils appropriate conditions. Specific reference was made to costs incurred by the lessees, including legal advice about the application made.

18. There have been subsequent decisions of the higher courts and Tribunals of assistance in the application of the decision in Daejan but none are relied upon or therefore require specific mention in this Decision.

19. More generally, the Tribunal considers that the case authorities demonstrate that the Tribunal has a very wide discretion to, if it considers it appropriate, impose whatever terms and conditions are required to meet the justice of the particular case- in Daejan it was said “on such terms as it thinks fit- provided, of course, that any such terms are appropriate in their nature and their effect”.

The Determination

Consideration

20. The property is said to comprise Block 1-5 a converted detached period building converted into leasehold apartments converted circa 1998/1999 housing 5 leasehold apartments, Block 6-10 is a purpose-built block of 5 flats with a flat roof, houses 11 and 12 are cojoined to Block 1-5 but have their own entrances.

21. The Applicant explained that: “the 5-year periodic inspection was carried out earlier in 2025 and works were identified as being urgent, it has taken some time to obtain quotes to complete not just the required works but also the recommended items within the report”. The works are described as “works to be supplied by [COMPANY] following quotes for same from 2 contractors.

Block 1-5: Supply & fit new isolator and distribution board. Replace surge suppression [sic] and time clock.

5 Install main earth bonds Re-wire existing bollards and external lighting (trench works to be supplied by different contractor) Supply 3 pedestal lantern and one wall mounted coach lantern Block 6-10: All of the above and add 2 tubular heaters to replace the existing Trench works to be supplied by [NAME] following quotes received for same from two contractors. Directors have verbally informed all resident owners within 1-12 of these works.

Dispensation is sought because:

The works are of an urgent nature as detailed within NICEIC report carried out by [COMPANY].”

22.A sample leases were provided with the Application, that of Flat 1 and [ADDRESS], James Milford Surrey. The Tribunal understands that the leases of the other properties are in the same or substantively the same terms. In the absence of any indication that the terms of any other of the leases differ in any material manner, the Tribunal has considered the Lease.

23.The sample lease has various obligations under the Lease, to pay service charge to the landlord including for maintaining the building.

24.The works appear, on the facts provided and without detailed consideration, to fall within the responsibility of the Applicant and may be chargeable as service charges.

25.The Tribunal finds that the Respondents have will not suffered any prejudice by the failure of the Applicant to follow the full consultation process.

26.The Tribunal consequently finds that it is reasonable to dispense with all of the formal consultation requirements in respect of the major works to the building.

27. This decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the major works as outlined in paragraph 2. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs incurred are reasonable and whether service charges are payable in any given sum or at all, this was the subject of a separate application.

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case by email at [EMAIL]

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

6

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28- day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28- day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.