Landlord Granted Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation Without Consultation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/LDC/2025/0861 Property : South Block, [ADDRESS], 52 Prince of [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [APPELLANT] ([NAME] on behalf of the Applicant) Respondents : [redacted] document headed “Names and Addresses: All Owners” attached to the [NAME] notice).

Type of [NAME] : To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Deputy Regional Judge Purcell Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 17 November 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

Decision of the Tribunal

The Tribunal grants the [NAME] 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) in relation to the urgent works required to the lift at the Property to make it safe and bring it up to the required

2 standard in accordance with the Remediation Order dated 5 December 2024 and varied by the Consent Order dated 25 April 2025 under case number LON/00AG/BSA/2024/0009. The background to the [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘LTA 1985’), pursuant to section 20ZA of the LTA 1985.

2. This is a retrospective [NAME] in connection with ongoing works to the lift.

3. There are related proceedings under the Building Safety Act 2022 under case number LON/00AG/BSA/2024/0009. The [NAME] confirms these as “A Remediation Order dated 5 December 2024 and a Consent Order dated 25 April 2025 relating to the firefighting lift. Works commenced in May and remain ongoing”.

4. The Property is described as a mixed-use building comprising 36 apartments and a medical centre.

5. The Applicant is the landlord of the Property and the Respondents comprise its residential long [NAME].

6. The [NAME] relates to works required to be carried out at the Property by the Applicant pursuant to a Remediation Order made by this Tribunal on 5 December 2024 and varied by a Consent Order dated 25 April 2025. The works concern a number of “Defects” at the Property including fire safety issues connected with the lift. The estimated cost of the works which commenced in May 2025 and are ongoing is around £87,600.

7. The [NAME] is said to be urgent because “the firefighting lift works are ongoing. Dispensation is urgently required to regularise recovery of costs and ensure compliance with Tribunal orders. Many residents are vulnerable and rely on the lift, so delay would pose health and safety risks”.

8. It is not clear from the [NAME] what notice has been given to the [NAME]. In an unsigned and undated witness statement of [COUNSEL] from the [NAME] it is said “Full statutory consultation under Section 20 could not be completed before the works started because of the urgency. However, [NAME] have not suffered any financial prejudice because competitive tendering was undertaken, the chosen contractor represents value for money, and [NAME] retain their statutory rights under Section 27A of the 1985 Act to challenge the reasonableness of service charges”. Mr [NAME] goes

3 on to say in relation to the cost of the works “the above figures reflect the costs set out in the Section 20 notice. The total projected costs of the firefighting lift works, inclusive of VAT and all associated professional, contingency and [NAME] costs, is £87,617.16. This figure matches the notice provided to [NAME] and is adopted for the purposes of this witness statement”. No section 20 notice has been provided with this [NAME].

9. By Directions of the Tribunal dated 13 October 2025 the Applicant was required to send to the Respondents copies of the [NAME] form, a brief statement to explain the reasons for the [NAME] and a copy of the Directions. By an email dated 22 October 2025 the Applicant confirmed that this had been done.

10. By Directions of the Tribunal dated 13 October 2025 it was decided that the [NAME] be determined without a hearing, by way of a paper case.

11. The Applicant has confirmed that no objections have been received from the Respondents in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions.

12. The Tribunal did not inspect the Property as it considered the documentation and information before it in the set of documents provided by the Applicant to be sufficient to enable the Tribunal to proceed with this determination.

13. This has been a paper determination which has not been objected to by the Parties. The documents that were referred to are the Applicant’s [NAME], a specimen lease, a list of the Respondents and the Tribunal’s Directions dated 13 October 2025. The issues 14. This decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the consulting requirements in respect of the qualifying works. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs are payable or reasonable. If a [NAME] wishes to challenge the payability of or reasonableness of those costs as service charges, including the possible [NAME] of effect of the Building Safety Act 2022, then a separate [NAME] under section 27A of the LTA 1985 would have to be made. Law 15. Section 20 of the LTA 1985 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. The purpose of the consultation procedure is to ensure

4 tenants are protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more that would be appropriate.

16. Should a landlord not comply with the correct consultation procedure it is possible to obtain dispensation from compliance with the consultation procedure by an [NAME] such as this one before the Tribunal. When considering any request for dispensation the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirement to consult in the particular case.

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

18. Section 20ZA relates to consultation requirements and provides as follows: “(1) Where an [NAME] 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. (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—

(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.”

5 19. In the case of [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14 the Supreme Court considered the dispensation provisions and set out guidelines as to how they should be applied.

20. The Supreme Court confirmed that the correct approach is to consider whether the flat owners will suffer any relevant prejudice and, if so, what relevant prejudice would arise from a landlord’s failure to comply with the requirements.

21. In considering applications for dispensation the Tribunal should focus on whether the [NAME] were prejudiced by the landlord’s failure to comply. The factual burden of identifying prejudice is on the flat owners.

22. The Tribunal must consider whether there has been any prejudice to the [NAME] from the failure by the landlord to comply with the consultation process, and whether in the circumstances it is reasonable for the Tribunal to grant dispensation.

Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision 23. Having read the evidence from the Applicant and having considered all of the documents and grounds for [NAME] the [NAME] provided by the Applicant, the Tribunal determines the dispensation issues as follows.

24. It is accepted that a consultation has not been carried out by the Applicant. [APPELLANT], the test is whether the Respondents suffered any (and, if so what) relevant prejudice as a result of the failure to consult. The Tribunal needs to focus on whether the Respondents were prejudiced by paying for inappropriate works or paying an inappropriate amount as a result of the Applicant’s failure to consult.

25. The Applicant believed that due to the urgency of the works, there was no time for any proper consultation to take place. On the evidence before it the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant’s conclusions.

26. Taking into account that there have been no objections to this [NAME] from the Respondents, the tribunal is unable to find any relevant prejudice to any of the [NAME] as a result of the failure to comply with the consultation requirements.

27. As a result, the Tribunal finds that it is reasonable to allow dispensation in relation to the subject matter of the [NAME].

28.

Accordingly, the Tribunal grants the Applicant’s [NAME] for dispensation from all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the LTA 1985, in relation to the urgent works

6 required to the lift at the Property to make it safe and bring it up to the required standard in accordance with the Remediation Order dated 5 December 2024 and varied by the Consent Order dated 25 April 2025.

29. The Applicant shall place a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on dispensation together with an explanation of the Respondents’ appeal rights in a prominent position in the communal areas of the Property within 7 days of receipt and shall maintain it there for at least 3 months. By doing so the Respondents who have not returned the reply form may view the Tribunal’s decision on dispensation and their appeal rights.

Name: Deputy Regional Judge Purcell Date: 17 November 2025

7 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).