RTM Company Granted Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed an RTM company to bypass consultation requirements for urgent electrical repairs because the existing cable was overheating and unsafe.
⚖️ Legal holding
An applicant may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and there is no substantial prejudice to the leaseholders.
📖 What the law says
The appropriate tribunal can grant an application to dispense with consultation requirements for qualifying works if it determines that it is reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to works on a building or other premises. The consultation requirements are detailed rules set by the Secretary of State through regulations.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent electrical works.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to an RTM company for urgent electrical works without prior consultation due to safety concerns, finding no substantial prejudice to the leaseholders.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :
LON/00AG/LDC/2025/0875
Property : 53 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY]: [NAME] Respondents : [redacted] per the schedule attached to the [NAME]. Representative : N/A Type of [NAME] : Dispensation for consultation – s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 9 December 2025
DECISION
2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants the applicant the dispensation from statutory
consultation sought in respect of works to replace the main cable
supplying electricity to the property at 53 [ADDRESS]
[POSTCODE]. ____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. The applicant seeks dispensation from the statutory consultation
requirements pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The background 2. The subject property at 53 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the
property’) comprises a mid-terrace Victorian house converted into 5 self-
contained flats over four floors.
3. The applicant seeks dispensation from consultation in respect of works
to replace the main cable supplying electricity to the subject property. A
Notice of Intention was served on the leaseholders on 19 September
2025. The works are said to be urgent as the current cable is
overheating and has been deemed unsafe by UK Power Networks. The
likely cost of the works is said to be in the region of £3,000. The hearing 5. Neither party requested an oral hearing and therefore the tribunal
determined the [NAME] using the 66 digital bundle provided by the
applicant. 6. The applicant confirmed to the tribunal that it had sent a copy of the
[NAME] and the tribunal’s directions by email on 15 October 2025 to
each of the [NAME]. The applicant also confirmed it had
not received any response from the leaseholders in respect of this
[NAME]. The decision and reasons 7. The tribunal is satisfied that the [NAME] have been
made aware of this [NAME]. The tribunal also finds that none of the
respondents have notified the applicant of any objection to this
[NAME]. 8. The tribunal is satisfied the respondents have failed to show they have
been caused any substantial prejudice by the absence of any or full
3
consultation prior to the works being carried out; [COMPANY] v Benson & others [2011] EWCA Civ 38. 8. Therefore, the tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought
by the applicant in respect of works to replace the main cable supplying
electricity to the subject property.
Name:
Judge Tagliavini Date: 9 December 2025
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 ([NAME]), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] 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.
4 If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 10 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Financial Penalty to £500
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Works on Residential Estate
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Management Company Allowed Urgent Lift Repairs Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charge Limitation Ruling by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Price for Freehold Purchase When Landlord Untracea…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Lease Breaches
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Halts Market Rent Determination Until Valid Notice Confirmed
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 are urgent.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Identifies Category 2 hazards that require remediation.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided to grant dispensation to the RTM company to carry out urgent electrical repairs without prior consultation.
Who was involved?
The RTM company and leaseholders of several flats were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and deemed safe, with no substantial prejudice to the leaseholders.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the works were urgent and necessary for safety reasons.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also seek dispensation if their works are urgent and necessary for safety reasons.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing the urgency and necessity of the works, along with the safety concerns, were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.