VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Grants £10k Lift Repair Dispensation for Flat Owners in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, a landlord requested permission to bypass certain consultation requirements because of urgent repairs needed for a broken lift in a building. The First-tier Tribunal agreed with the landlord, granting permission to proceed with the repairs without further consultation.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord can obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and necessary, as seen in this case involving lift repairs exceeding £5000.

Topics

tenancy disputesrepair works

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant a request to bypass consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that landlords must follow when planning works or long-term agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements due to urgent lift repairs exceeding £5000. 🔴

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord's application for dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing immediate repair works due to an urgent situation involving a broken lift.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AM/LDC/2019/0012 Property : Flats at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] application Representative : Did not appear and were not represented Type of Application : [POSTCODE] Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Members : Judge F J Silverman Dip Fr LLM

Date and venue of Paper determination : 26 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 26 March 2019

DECISION

1. The Tribunal exercises its discretion under s20ZA Landlord and

2 Tenant Act 1985 to dispense with the statutory requirements for consultation.

REASONS

2. The Applicant seeks a determination of its application for dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by s. 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

3. The Application to the Tribunal was made on 23 January 2019.

4. Directions were issued by the Tribunal on 31 January 2019.

5. The Tribunal did not consider that it was necessary to inspect the property.

6. The property comprises four storey purpose built block of flats, access to the upper floors being served by a lift. During the late autumn of 2018 the lift serving the flats broke down.

7. The Applicant considered that it was necessary to remedy this problem without delay and an independent assessment of the situation concluded that substantial repairs, the costs of which would exceed the s20 limit, were required.

8. The Applicant decided that it was in the best interests of the [NAME] to proceed with the repairs immediately and this was done.

9. The [NAME] were all notified of the situation and on 18 December 2018 were notified of the Applicant’s application for dispensation under s20ZA.

10. The Applicant now seeks dispensation from the procedures under s20 as all the works have been satisfactorily completed.

11. None of the [NAME] has objected to the s20ZA application.

12. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under s.20ZA of the Act. The wording of s.20ZA is significant. Subs. (1) provides:

“Where an application is made to a [leasehold valuation] tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation

3 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 (emphasis added).” 13. The Tribunal understands that the purposes of the consultation requirements is to ensure that leaseholders are given the fullest possible opportunity to make observations about expenditure of money for which they will in part be liable.

14. Having considered the bundle of papers prepared for the Tribunal by the Applicant the Tribunal is satisfied that the works undertaken were sufficiently urgent and necessary to permit them to exercise their discretion in the Applicant’s favour. In view of the fact that none of the tenants had objected to these works the Tribunal did not consider that any prejudice would be caused to either party by granting dispensation as requested.

15. In these circumstances the Tribunal determines that it is reasonable to exercise its discretion to dispense with the statutory requirements for consultation.

Judge F J Silverman as Chairman Date: 26 March 2019

Note: 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-

4 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:

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 proves the urgency and necessity of the works.
  • The works are deemed both urgent and necessary by the court.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that went against the claimant in these cases.)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements due to urgent lift repairs exceeding £5000.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether the landlord could bypass the consultation requirements for urgent lift repairs that exceeded £5000.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were deemed urgent and necessary, and the cost exceeded the statutory limit.

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 repairs were urgent and necessary, and the cost exceeded the statutory limit, thus justifying dispensation from consultation requirements.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing the landlord to proceed with the repairs without following the usual consultation process.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For someone in a similar situation, this means that if repairs are urgent and necessary, and the cost exceeds the statutory limit, they may be able to obtain dispensation from consultation requirements.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered, but it likely included documentation regarding the urgency and necessity of the repairs, as well as the cost exceeding the statutory limit.

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.