VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Permission to Bypass Consultation for Urgent Lift Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent repairs to the only lift in a multi-story building. The decision was made because the repairs were deemed urgent and necessary to ensure a person could access upper floors safely.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and no relevant prejudice is found, as seen in the case of repairing a broken lift in a multi-story building.

Topics

consultation requirementsurgent repairsdispensation

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZAService Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant dispensation to a landlord to bypass consultation requirements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to specific obligations imposed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, which may include providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, and considering tenants' observations.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent lift repairs costing £4,200.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation for the landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent repairs to the only lift in a multi-story building. The decision was based on the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from the leaseholders.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CHI/00MS/LDC/2023/0041 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] :

[COMPANY]

Respondents : [redacted] : Application for the dispensation of consultation requirements pursuant to S.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Members : Judge Hugh Lumby Venue : Paper determination Date of Decision : 29 May 2024

DECISION

2

Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal grants the application for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (Section 20ZA of the same Act). The background to the application 1. [NAME] is a detached four storey building containing 16 flats above two ground floor commercial units. It was constructed in about 2002.

2. The application relates to works to repair the only lift in [NAME], which had failed.

3. The Applicant considered the works were urgent to enable [NAME] to access the fourth floor, especially when carrying goods. The Applicant was also made aware that vulnerable [NAME] should not be using the stairs.

4. The Applicant has obtained one quotation for the works, which said the cost of the works would be £4,200. The Applicant refers to seeking a further quotation but has not provided further information.

5. The works have now been carried out.

6. The Applicant has confirmed that the Respondents have been informed of the need for the works and this application and that no objections have been received.

7. By Directions of the Tribunal dated 3 April 2024 it was decided that the application be determined without a hearing, by way of a paper case.

8. The Tribunal did not inspect [NAME] as it considered the documentation and information before it in the set of documents prepared by the Applicant enabled the Tribunal to proceed with this determination.

9. This has been a paper determination which has been consented to by the parties. The documents that were referred to are the Applicant’s application, a specimen lease, a list of the [NAME] plus the Tribunal’s Directions dated 3 April 2024, the contents of which has been recorded. The issues

3 10. This decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying long- term agreement. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs are payable or reasonable. If a Lessee wishes to challenge the payability or reasonableness of those costs as service charges, including the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made. Law 11. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) (“the 1985 Act”) and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 require a landlord planning to undertake major works, where a leaseholder will be required to contribute over £250 towards those works, to consult the [NAME] in a specified form.

12. Should a landlord not comply with the correct consultation procedure, it is possible to obtain dispensation from compliance with these requirements by an application such as this one before the Tribunal. Essentially the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.

13. The Applicant seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act from all the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by section 20 of the 1985 Act.

14. Section 20ZA relates to consultation requirements and provides as follows: “(1) 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 agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.

(2) In section 20 and this section— “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months. …. (4) In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord—

4 (a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants’ association representing them, (b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c) to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements.

Findings 7. In the case of [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, by a majority decision (3-2), the Supreme Court considered the dispensation provisions and set out guidelines as to how they should be applied.

8. The Supreme Court came to the following conclusions: a. The correct legal test on an application to the Tribunal for dispensation is: 

“Would the [NAME] suffer any relevant prejudice, and if so, what relevant prejudice, as a result of the landlord’s failure to comply with the requirements?” b. The purpose of the consultation procedure is to ensure [NAME] are protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than would be appropriate. c. In considering applications for dispensation the Tribunal should focus on whether the [NAME] were prejudiced in either respect by the landlord’s failure to comply. d. The Tribunal has the power to grant dispensation on appropriate terms and can impose conditions. e. The factual burden of identifying some relevant prejudice is on the [NAME]. Once they have shown a credible case for prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it. f. The onus is on the [NAME] to establish: i. what steps they would have taken had the breach not happened and ii. in what way their rights under (b) above have been prejudiced as a consequence.

5 16. Accordingly, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was any prejudice that may have arisen out of the conduct of the applicant and whether it was reasonable for the Tribunal to grant dispensation following the guidance set out above.

Consideration 17. Having read the evidence and submissions from the Applicant and having considered all of the documents and grounds for making the application provided by the applicants, the Tribunal determines the dispensation issues as follows.

18. The Tribunal is of the view that, taking into account that there have been no objections from the [NAME], it could not find prejudice to any of the [NAME] of [NAME] by the granting of dispensation relating to the urgent works to repair the lift in [NAME].

19. The Applicant believed that the works were urgent to ensure that [NAME] could gain access to the fourth floor of [NAME]. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal agrees with this conclusion and believes that it is reasonable to allow dispensation in relation to the subject matter of the application.

20. The Applicant shall place a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on dispensation together with an explanation of the [NAME]’ appeal rights on its website (if any) within 7 days of receipt and shall maintain it there for at least 3 months, with a sufficiently prominent link to both on its home page. It should also be posted in a prominent position in the communal areas. In this way, [NAME] who have not returned the reply form may view the Tribunal’s eventual decision on dispensation and their appeal rights.

6

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 by email to [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.

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.

📊 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 were urgent because a vulnerable resident should not be using the stairs.
  • The works were urgent to ensure residents could access the fourth floor, especially when carrying goods.
  • The residents were informed of the need for the works and the application, and no objections were received.
  • The Tribunal found no prejudice to any residents by granting dispensation for the urgent lift repairs.
  • The Tribunal agreed that the works were urgent to ensure access to the fourth floor.

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 requirements for urgent lift repairs costing £4,200.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether the landlord needed to consult tenants before carrying out urgent lift repairs costing £4,200.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation, as the works were urgent and no relevant prejudice was found to the tenants.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the works were urgent and necessary to ensure access to upper floors, particularly for vulnerable residents.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing the landlord to bypass consultation requirements.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be able to bypass consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary to avoid relevant prejudice to tenants.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the urgency of the works, the cost of the repairs (£4,200), and the lack of objections from the tenants.

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.