VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Additional Works Under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal allowed the landlord to carry out additional works without consulting the tenants again. This was because the works were already underway, and it would be more cost-effective to complete them while the scaffolding was still in place.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from statutory consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so and no prejudice is caused to the tenants.

Topics

statutory consultationdispensationlandlord and tenant act

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant a determination to waive all or some of the consultation requirements for qualifying works or agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to work done on a building or premises, and qualifying long-term agreements are those lasting over twelve months. The consultation requirements include providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenant suggestions for estimates, considering tenant observations, and giving reasons for certain actions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation for additional works under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing the landlord to proceed without further consultation with tenants.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation for additional works under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing the landlord to proceed without further consultation with tenants. The decision was made on the basis that it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements and no prejudice would be caused to the tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AC/LDC/2022/0213 Property : [ADDRESS], London [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [APPELLANT] ([NAME]) Respondent : [redacted] schedule accompanying the [NAME] : No appearance Type of [NAME] : Dispensation from statutory consultation Tribunal member(s) : Tribunal Judge Roger Cohen Date and venue of hearing : 17 January 2023 paper hearing [at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]] Date of decision : 17 January 2023

DECISION

Covid-19 pandemic: Description of hearing: This matter was determined on paper. The tenants were served with the [NAME] but did not participate.

The [NAME], the property, the works and the law

1. The applicant by an [NAME] dated 25th October 2022 applies for dispensation pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of major works. costed at £ 47,791.56. Of this sum, works costed at £33,154.06 have already been the subject of consultation. The applicant seeks dispensation in relation to additional works costed at £14,637.50. Major works are currently being carried out to the internal and

2 external areas of the building roof works were budgeted for within the original quotation but the contractor has discovered further works required to the roof stop the applicant says that it will be more cost effective to have the additional roof works carried out whilst the contractor is on site with scaffolding up

2. The Tribunal gave directions on 23rd November 2022.

3. The works in respect of which relief is sought, and the costings for each item are as follows

(a) removal of all ash felt terraces and flat roof areas - £1344.60 (b) install lko hot pot asphalt terrace watering - £5472.00 (c) install memtec single ply membrane including allowance for perimeter trims - £2773.32 (d) skylight weathering (not including flashing kids all lead flashing detail unknown) - £1080 (e) round terrace flat roof handrail post weathering - £1528.

The total costing for these items is £12197.92 plus VAT of £2439.58.

4. The property is a residential block of seven flats on two or three floors. and the management is tenant controlled according to the applicant’s filings at [NAME] which the Tribunal reviewed.

5. Section 20ZA(1) of the 1985 Act provides:

“Where an [NAME] is made to the appropriate tribunal [in England, this 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.”

6. An important consideration is always whether granting dispensation will cause prejudice to the tenants. In my judgment, on the facts of this case there is no prejudice to the tenants. First, there is no objection by any of the tenants to the [NAME] for dispensation. Secondly, given that works are underway which have been the subject of consultation and scaffolding is up, the Tribunal considers that it is reasonable for the additional works to be performed whilst the scaffolding is up. This must be th more cost effective way for the works to be performed.

7. In the Tribunal’s judgment, it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in this case.

8. This dispensation does not mean that the tenants cannot challenge the cost or quality of the work done. It simply dispenses with the consultation requirement.

3 9. There is no [NAME] in respect of the fees for applying to the Tribunal, so the Tribunal make no order in respect of such fees.

a) The Tribunal grants a dispensation pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the works the subject of the [NAME]. b) The Tribunal makes no order in respect of the fees payable to the Tribunal.

Name: Judge Roger Cohen Date: 17 January 2023

4

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).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 court found no tenant objected to the request for dispensation.
  • The court found it more cost-effective to perform additional roof works while scaffolding was already up.
  • The court found that the additional works were discovered while major works were already underway.
  • The court found that the landlord's management was tenant-controlled.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal granted dispensation for the landlord to carry out additional works without further consultation with the tenants.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, and the tenants were not present to oppose the application.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because it was deemed reasonable and would be more cost-effective to complete the works while the scaffolding was in place.

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 it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements and that completing the works while the scaffolding was in place would be more cost-effective.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to obtain dispensation if it is reasonable to do so and no prejudice is caused to the tenants.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the costs of the works and the fact that some works had already been consulted upon.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days of receiving the written reasons for the decision.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving statutory consultation and dispensation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

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.