Landlord Granted Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation in First-tier Tribunal Case
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for urgent lift repairs in a Grade II listed building. The repairs were deemed urgent due to the potential for further damage and the need to maintain social distancing during the pandemic.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant a request to waive consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. The term 'qualifying works' refers to work done on buildings or other premises, and 'qualifying long term agreement' refers to agreements lasting over twelve months. The Secretary of State can create regulations that specify when an agreement is not considered a 'qualifying long term agreement'. The 'consultation requirements' refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to consult tenants about proposed works or agreements.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation to the landlord from consultation requirements for urgent lift repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to a landlord from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent lift repairs in a Grade II listed building. The decision was based on the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from the tenants.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BJ/LDC/2020/0209 Property : 58 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“The Building”) Applicant : [redacted] Landlord”) Representative : N/A Respondents : [redacted] (“the tenants”) Representative : N/A Type of Application :
For dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Member :
Judge Jim Shepherd
Date of Decision : 17th December 2020
DECISION
The Applicant is given dispensation from the consultation requirements contained in s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in order to carry out urgent lift repairs as specified in their application.
The application 1. The applicant seeks an order pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) (“the 1985 Act”) for dispensation from all or part of the consultation requirements imposed on them by section 20 of the 1985 Act1.
2. The applicant is the freeholder of premises at 58 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“The Building”). The building is a mixed use Grade II listed building, consisting of a 1920's converted cinema (now leased to a church with a sublet to a small gym) and 61 purpose built apartments (mix of 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom apartments, completed in 2010). The freehold was acquired through a compulsory acquisition order by [APPELLANT] in 2018.
3. The applicant seeks dispensation for urgent works to one of the lifts in the building. The building has two lifts providing access to the second to sixth floors. The left hand lift requires various urgent repair works including re-roping, new main drive sheave, new cast type diverters. It is said that if these works are not carried out promptly, further damage will result to numerous parts to the lift resulting in a cost three times the amount of the repairs. It is also said that due to the ongoing Covid-19 restrictions, it is imperative that both lifts are operational, especially to maintain social distancing.
4. The applicant has sent the [NAME] a quote for the proposed work and given notice of their application. No [NAME] have objected to the works.
5. The landlord seeks dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements on the basis of urgency.
6. The tribunal did not consider that an inspection of the Building was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute.
7. The only issue for the tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements of section 20 of the 1985 Act. This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. The Tribunal’s decision 8.The Tribunal determines that an order from dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act shall be made dispensing with all of the consultation requirements in relation to the proposed lift works.
1 See Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (SI2003/1987) Schedule 4, Part 2.
Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision 9. The tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act “if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”.
10. In making its decision the tribunal had regard to the fact that the applicant has apparently sought to carry out some consultation and kept the tenants informed of their intentions.
11. It is not considered that the lessees have suffered any particular prejudice as a result of the failure to follow the correct consultation procedure (see [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14.) The Tribunal accepts that the landlord’s intentions to carry out the works as soon as possible are genuine in order to preserve the integrity of the lift and maintain social distancing.
12. Again the parties should note that this decision does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. The tenants have the right to challenge such costs by way of a separate application if they so wish.
Name: [NAME]: 17th December 2020
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 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.
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 10 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Granted Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Financial Penalty to £500
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Freeholder to Vary Leases for Sinking Fund and I…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Invalid Rent Increase Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
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 court accepted that the landlord's intentions to carry out the works were genuine to preserve the lift's integrity.
- The court found that the works were urgent, as further damage would result if not carried out promptly.
- The court noted that the landlord had attempted some consultation and kept tenants informed.
- The court determined that the tenants had not suffered any particular prejudice from the failure to follow the correct consultation procedure.
- The court accepted that both lifts needed to be operational due to ongoing Covid-19 restrictions to maintain social distancing.
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 consultation requirements for urgent lift repairs.
Who was involved?
The landlord of a Grade II listed building and the tenants of the building were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and there were no objections from 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 urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from the tenants 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 obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if their repairs are urgent and there are no objections from the tenants.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The quote for the proposed work and the notice of the application were important pieces of evidence.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property law.
