Landlord Granted Relief from Leaseholder Consultation Rules

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : HAV/OOMS/LDC/2025/0019 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [APPELLANT] Respondent : [redacted] : none Type of [NAME] : To dispense with the requirements to consult [NAME] about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Tribunal members : [NAME] : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]- Determination on Papers. Date of decision : 20 April 2026

DECISION

2

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 1985 Act in respect of major works, that relate to temporary works that were undertaken to a collapsed soffit to make the area safe and allow the removal of long-standing scaffolding that was generating ongoing costs for leaseholders.

The [NAME] and the history of the case

2. The matter was determined on papers, no request for a hearing or inspection was received and the Tribunal did not consider either to be proportionate.

3. The Applicant, Ranger OV RTM, by letter dated 31 July 2025, appointed [COMPANY] to act on their behalf in respect of this [NAME].

4. The property is described as a residential apartment building located in the Ocean Village, Southampton, at 1 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]. The building comprises a mix of one and two-bedroom apartments, a total of 16 residential flats, along with the two commercial units that are currently leased to [NAME].

5. The Respondents are the leaseholders.

6. The Applicant applied by an [NAME] dated “21 December 2026” , the Tribunal gives an interpretation that a reasonable person would in this matter understand that the intended date of signature was 21 December 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 , these set out in the Directions of 11 March 2026 :

relate to temporary repair works to a collapsed soffit area, carried out to make the area safe and to allow the removal of long-standing scaffolding. The works were instructed to [NAME] and were carried out between 18 December 2025 and 7 January 2026.

7. Further:

We are requesting dispensation from the full consultation requirements as it was not reasonable or cost-effective to delays the works. The temporary works were necessary to make the area safe and allow the removal of long-standing scaffolding that was generating ongoing costs for leaseholders. A full repair was not appropriate at this stage due to the upcoming cladding remediation works. Two competitive quotations were obtained, and the most cost-effective option was selected to ensure value for money.

The Tribunal provided Directions dated 16 February 2026, then amended 11 March 2026. The Directions provided at paragraph 14 that Respondents shall by 31 March 2026 complete a reply form and send it to the Tribunal and the

3 Applicant and if they oppose the [NAME], a statement setting out why they oppose the [NAME]. The Tribunal assuming that those Respondents not returning the attached form and those agreeing to the [NAME] do not wish to receive any further communications from the Tribunal including a copy of the determination unless a specific request is made.

8. The applicant by e mail dated 31 March 2026 informed the tribunal that they had received one reply from the respondent leaseholders.

The response was from the [NAME] of Flat 8 and was in support of the [NAME] for dispensation.

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 [NAME] may be made retrospectively.

10. Section 20ZA provides that on an [NAME] 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 [NAME] et al [2013] UKSC 14.

12. The leading judgment of Lord [NAME] explained that a Tribunal should focus on the question of whether [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 [NAME]. [NAME] must identify what would have been said if able to engage in a consultation process. If [NAME] advances a credible case for having been prejudiced, the [NAME] must rebut it. The Tribunal should be sympathetic to [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 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, [NAME]

4 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 [NAME], including legal advice about the [NAME] made.

18. There have been subsequent decisions of the higher courts and Tribunals of assistance in the [NAME] 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”.

Submissions and Consideration

20. The [NAME] contain a copy of a sample lease, a high-level review of these indicates the landlord is responsible for undertaking these works and collecting the cost of such from the leaseholders.

21. The Applicant provided photographs, a quotation from [NAME] for “removal of the existing soffit boards and installing mill finish aluminium sheets to the soffit at a price of £9,595.80, a copy of the completion works, an invoice and a tender breakdown and a breakdown of works instructed by [NAME]

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

23.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.

24. This decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the major works outlined above. 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. If a [NAME] wishes to challenge the reasonableness of those costs and/ or the payable service charges, then a separate [NAME] under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.

5

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 regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office 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).