AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·02 February 2021

Landlord Granted Urgent Dispensation for Fire Safety Measures

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent fire safety measures, such as installing a fire alarm system, due to dangerous building materials.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under urgent circumstances involving fire safety measures.

Topics

fire safetydispensation from consultation

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 grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to certain works or long-term agreements if it is 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' refer to rules set by the Secretary of State, which may include providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenants to suggest additional estimates, considering tenants' observations, and giving reasons for carrying out works or entering into agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for fire safety works.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing for urgent fire safety measures due to highly combustible building materials.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: CHI/21UG/LDC/2020/0096

Property

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

[COMPANY]

Respondents

[redacted]

Type of Application

Dispensation with consultation requirements – section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Member(s)

Judge E Morrison

Date and Venue of Hearing

Determination on papers

Date of Decision

12 January 2021

DECISION

The application

1. This is an application by a landlord for dispensation from the consultation requirements provided for in section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

2. The application explains that following an inspection by FRC an external façade report dated 20 November 2020 indicated that the external wall system is made of highly combustible materials and recommended that a holistic fire safety review be undertaken by a fire engineer. If that review established an unacceptable risk then the façade would require replacement.

3. In a report from [NAME] dated 18 November 2020 a fire detection and alarm system was specified in order to change from a “stay put” evacuation procedure to full evacuation. Until installed a waking watch must be employed.

4. This application is in respect of the works referred to in the [NAME] report only.

5. The application is dated 24 November 2020 and, together with the accompanying report and the Directions dated 2 December 2020, has been served on the [NAME]. The application constitutes the Applicant’s statement of case.

6. The Tribunal directed the [NAME] to respond in writing by 17 December 2020 whether they consented to or opposed the application. The Tribunal has received 41 response forms, none objecting to the application.

7. The Tribunal also directed that the application was to be dealt with on the papers.

Decision

8. In light of the urgency and the ongoing cost of a waking watch, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with all consultation requirements in respect of the works recommended by [NAME].

9. This decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements. The Tribunal has made no determination as to whether the costs of the works were reasonable. If a leaseholder wishes to challenge the reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would be required.

Appeals

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.

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:

Allowed11 cases

Allowed in Part1 case

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation From Consultation Requirements

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 landlord demonstrates that the works are urgent and necessary for fire safety.
The landlord shows that leaseholders would not suffer relevant prejudice.
The landlord proves that it is reasonable to obtain dispensation from consultation requirements.
The landlord confirms that the works are urgent and necessary for fire safety and security.
The landlord establishes that the consultation requirements can be reasonably dispensed in urgent situations involving fire safety.

❌ Tends to be rejected

(No significant factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant the landlord dispensation from consultation requirements for fire safety works.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation due to the urgency and the need to address fire safety issues immediately.

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 the urgency and the need for immediate action to ensure fire safety.

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 could also seek dispensation from consultation requirements if there are urgent fire safety concerns.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence included reports indicating the use of highly combustible materials and recommendations for fire safety improvements.

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 advisable to seek legal 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.