Tribunal Grants £3,580 Lift Repair Dispensation for Urgent Works in London
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent lift repairs in a multi-flat property. The repairs were considered necessary because elderly and children living there depend on the lift.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and no objections are raised.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and outlines the types of consultation requirements that can be waived.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for urgent lift repairs in a multi-flat property.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for urgent lift repairs in a multi-flat property, citing the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The works were deemed urgent due to vulnerable residents relying on lift access.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2024/0188 Property : 121 St. George’s Square, London [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : [NAME] Respondents : [redacted] [NAME] : N/A Type of [NAME] : Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – dispensation with consultation Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 16 September 2024
DECISION
2 The tribunal’s decision 1. The tribunal determines it is appropriate to grant the dispensation from
the statutory consultation, sought by the applicant in respect of lift repair
works including the replacement of emergency lighting and batteries in
the lift at a cost of £3,580.14 including VAT. _____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 2. This is an [NAME] by the applicant landlord of the premises situate
at 121, St. George’s Square, London [POSTCODE] (‘the property’) seeking
statutory dispensation from statutory consultation in respect of lift
repair works including the replacement of emergency lighting and
batteries in the lift at a cost of £3,580.14 including VAT. The property
comprises a Victorian building consisting of six flats. The works were
said to be urgent due to vulnerable people and children residing on the
top floors who are reliant on lift access. 3. The required works were carried out and completed on 13 May 2024 by
the contractor [COMPANY] which included
replacement of the emergency lighting and batteries. The cost of the
works were invoiced to the applicant in the sum of £3,580.14 (including
VAT). The hearing 4. Neither party requested an oral hearing and the tribunal determined the
[NAME] upon the documents provided by the applicant. The
tribunal was provided with a digital bundle of 66 pages by the applicant
on which it relied. The applicant informed the tribunal the [NAME],
directions and a witness statement were ere displayed in a prominent
position for the attention of the [NAME]. 5. No objections to the [NAME] were received by the applicant or the
tribunal any of the [NAME] named in the [NAME]. The tribunal’s reasons 6. Having regard to the evidence relied upon by the applicant, the tribunal
determines the works required and were subsequently undertaken to the
lift, were urgent. As no objections to the [NAME] were made or any
prejudice identified the respondent [NAME], were the [NAME] to
be granted, the tribunal is satisfied the works required were urgent and
that it is appropriate to grant the dispensation from consultation sought
by the applicant pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act
3
1985; [APPELLANT] v Benson and others [2011] EWCA
Civ 38.
Name: Judge Tagliavini
Date: 16 September 2024
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] 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 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).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Flat Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £220/week Rent for Assured Tenancy in Shoreham
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £18,075.94 Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Successfully Obtains Right to Manage Property Despite Procedural I…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal grants dispensation for service charge changes in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins: Incorrect Rent Increase Notice Invalidated
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy: Case Summary
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £10,320 Fire Safety Works Dispensation in Chingford
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Lease Breaches
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Cladding Repairs
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.
- No objections are raised by tenants.
- The works are necessary to address a significant safety issue.
- Failure to consult promptly would cause more prejudice than benefit.
- The landlord complies with statutory requirements.
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 the usual consultation process for urgent lift repairs costing £3,580.14 including VAT.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord could get dispensation from statutory consultation for urgent lift repairs costing £3,580.14 including VAT.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the dispensation because the repairs were deemed urgent and necessary for the safety of residents, especially those who rely on the lift for access.
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 for the safety of residents, particularly those who rely on the lift for access.
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 bypass 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 for the safety of residents, they may be able to bypass the usual consultation process.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included the urgency of the repairs, the cost of the repairs (£3,580.14 including VAT), and the reliance of residents on the lift for access.
