VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Works Without Consultation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted the landlord's request to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent repairs. These repairs included replacing a boiler, removing dangerous asbestos, and fixing a lift. The decision was made because the work was deemed urgent and necessary.

⚖️ Legal holding

It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements where there is an urgent need for works.

Topics

urgent worksstatutory consultation requirements

Provisions

section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to waive consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it deems it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to specific obligations placed on landlords to consult tenants regarding proposed works or agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted the landlord's application to dispense with consultation requirements for urgent works.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted the landlord's application to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements for urgent works, including replacing a boiler, removing asbestos, and repairing a lift. The decision was based on the urgent nature of the works and the absence of any prejudice to the tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2025/0784 Property : 44 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [APPELLANT] ([COUNSEL]) Respondents :

[redacted] [NAME] (Flat B) [COMPANY] (Flat C) [COMPANY] (Flat D) [NAME] (Flat E)

Type of application : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :

Judge Robert Latham

Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 15 September 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal grants this application to dispense retrospectively with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 without condition in respect of urgent works to replace a boiler, remove asbestos and for lift repairs.

2 The Application 1. By two applications, dated 26 June and 2 July 2025, the Applicant applies for retrospective dispensation from the statutory duty to consult in respect of urgent works to replace a boiler, remove asbestos and lift repairs. The property at [ADDRESS] is a substantial terraced property in Knightsbridge which has been converted to create five flats.

2. The Applicant has provided the following estimates: (i) [NAME], dated 13 June 2025, in the sum of £5,747.74 (inc VAT) to decommission the existing boiler and install a new boiler; (ii) Socotec, dated 28 March 2025, to remove asbestos which was discovered in the boiler room, in the sum of £2,340 (exc VAT). On 8 April 2025, the asbestos was removed; and (iii) Able Lifts, dated 7 January 2025, to supply and fit an upgraded pop ramp for the lift in the sum of £1,608.74 (inc VAT). On 15 April 2025, the lift works were carried out.

3. No consultation was carried out because of the urgency of the works. All the works have now been completed.

4. On 30 July 2025, the Tribunal issued Directions. The Directions stated that the Tribunal would determine the application on the papers, unless any party requested an oral hearing. No party has done so.

5. By 6 August 2025, the Applicant was directed to send to the leaseholders by email, hand delivery or first-class post: (i) copies of the application form (excluding any list of respondents’ names and addresses) unless already sent by the applicant to the leaseholder/sublessee; (ii) if not already provided in the application, a brief statement to explain the reasons for the application; and (iii) the directions. The Applicant was further directed to display a copy of these in a prominent place in the common parts of the property. The Applicant has confirmed that it had complied with this Direction.

6. By 20 August 2025, any leaseholder who opposed the application was directed to complete a Reply Form which was attached to the Directions and send it both to the Tribunal and to the Applicant. The leaseholder was further directed to send the Applicant a statement in response to the application. No leaseholder has returned a completed Reply Form opposing the application.

3 7. The Applicant has provided a Bundle of Documents (76 pages) in support of the application. The Applicant has also provided a copy of the lease for Flat E.

8. 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 or qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.”

9. The only issue which this Tribunal has been required to determine is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

10. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant retrospective dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements. This is justified by the urgent need for the works. There is no suggestion that any prejudice has arisen. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant dispensation without any conditions.

11. The Directions make provision for the service of the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal will email a copy of its decision to the Applicant. The Applicant is responsible for serving a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on the Respondents. Judge Robert Latham 15 September 2025

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 by e-mail 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.

4 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 tribunal found it reasonable to waive the consultation rules due to the urgent nature of the works.
  • No leaseholder opposed the application, indicating no prejudice was suffered.
  • The applicant confirmed they had sent the necessary documents to the leaseholders and displayed them.
  • The works included replacing a boiler, removing asbestos, and repairing a lift.

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 process for urgent repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of the property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the landlord's request because the works were urgent and necessary for safety.

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 urgency of the works and the need to ensure safety were the most important arguments.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might be able to bypass the consultation process if their works are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Estimates for the cost of the works and the dates when the works were carried out were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

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.