Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Energy Supply Agreements
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a group of housing associations to bypass the usual consultation requirements for entering into a long-term agreement for gas and electricity supply, recognising the difficulties in fully complying with these requirements.
⚖️ Legal holding
Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 allows the tribunal to dispense with the strict consultation requirements under certain circumstances.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the tribunal to grant a request to bypass consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as work done on buildings or other premises and 'qualifying long term agreement' as an agreement lasting over twelve months made by the landlord or a superior landlord. The Secretary of State can create regulations to exclude certain types of agreements from being considered 'qualifying'. The consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State, which can include providing details to tenants, obtaining estimates, considering tenant proposals, and giving reasons for actions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for entering into a long-term agreement for gas and electricity supply.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for entering into a long-term agreement for gas and electricity supply, acknowledging the challenges in complying with statutory requirements under EU Procurement Regulations.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/24UD/LDC/2019/0047
Property
:
Various scheme properties within Southampton, Eastleigh, Fordingbridge, [ADDRESS] Windsor, [ADDRESS], Langley, Petersfield and Portsmouth
Applicant: [redacted]
[COMPANY], [COMPANY], [COMPANY] and [COMPANY]
:
[NAME] [COUNSEL] counsel, instructed by [COMPANY]
Respondents
:
[redacted]
:
Type of Application
:
To dispense with the requirement to consult [NAME] about major works
Tribunal Member(s)
:
Judge D. R. Whitney
Date and Venue of Hearing
:
Havant Justice Centre, 16th August 2019
Date of Decision
:
16th August 2019
DECISION
2
The Application
1. This is an application for dispensation from the consultation requirements provided for in section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
2. The Applicants are various Housing Associations which form part of the Radian Group. Application was made seeking dispensation from consultation in respect of entering into a qualifying long term agreement for the supply of electricity and gas. The application relates to some 3,509 potential Respondents.
3. Directions were given on 13th June 2019 requiring the Applicant to send the Application and directions to all leaseholders. Any leaseholder who wished to object must do so by 3rd July 2019. 16 leaseholders objected and requested that the matter be listed for a hearing.
4. The Applicants solicitors filed a hearing bundle. References in [] are to pages within the hearing bundle.
5. No leaseholders attended the hearing. [NAME] [COUNSEL] of counsel represented the Applicants and Mrs [COUNSEL]. [NAME], Head of Residential Services of the Radian Group was also in attendance.
Hearing
6. At the commencement of the hearing the tribunal provided to [NAME] [NAME] a letter dated 31st July 2019 received from [NAME] [NAME] [NAME], a leaseholder, who had indicated he could not attend. [NAME] [NAME] was content for the tribunal to have regard to this letter which it read and considered in making its determination.
7. [NAME] [NAME] confirmed that three previous decisions had been made by the tribunal granting dispensation to the Applicants in similar circumstances [19-34].
8. Mrs [NAME] had provided two witness statements in support of the application. The first [13-45] was attached to the application and was dated 14th May 2019. The second was dated 12th August 2019 [218- 220]. Mrs [NAME] confirmed to the tribunal that to the best of her knowledge the contents of both statements were true. She confirmed she believed that as set out at paragraph 10 of her first statement [15] the application affected some 3,509 properties.
9. It was confirmed that only one leaseholder had returned the tribunal form positively agreeing the application. The Applicants were not aware of any other objectors save for the 16 which included [NAME] [NAME].
10. [NAME] [NAME] confirmed the second witness statement of Mrs [NAME] was filed to explain the current situation. In short the current agreement for supply of gas and electricity was due to expire at the end of July
3 2019. The Applicants had negotiated an extension of this contract for a period of 11 months to enable this application to be determined. Given the period of extension was not more than 12 months the Applicant did not have to consult over the same. It was submitted this was reasonable and proportionate to ensure the Applicant could obtain best value for the supply of gas and electricity for communal supplies.
Determination
11. The tribunal had regard to all of the documents before it and the oral submissions made at the hearing in making its determination. It considered carefully each of the objections including the letter from [NAME] [NAME].
12. In short all of the objections referred to a lack of communication from the Applicants with the Respondents. Further the concerns as how any such new contract may lead to increases in the service charges at the properties.
13. The tribunal acknowledges and understands the Respondents concerns. However the tribunal accepts that given the requirements under EU Procurement Regulations and the way the energy supply market operates it is not possible to fully comply with the statutory consultation requirements. This was acknowledged and accepted in each of the three previous decisions copies of which are within the bundle.
14. This tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable for the Applicant to appoint a [NAME] to arrange long term energy supply agreements for a period of up to three years as referred to in the original application [1-11]. Such a process is recognised as ensuring best value is achieved as identified within the documents supplied by the Applicant. It is widely recognised that it is not possible to consult ion the way the legislation strictly requires and Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 permits the tribunal to dispense with the strict requirements.
15. The tribunal is satisfied that the process proposed by the Applicant of appointing a [NAME] to obtain competitive quotes from suppliers in the energy market as identified in the first witness statement of Mrs [NAME] will ensure that the best interests of the leaseholders is achieved.
16. The Tribunal dispenses with the consultation requirements in respect of the Applicant looking to enter into a qualifying long term agreement for the supply of gas and electricity for a period of up to 3 years from the determination of the current contract.
4 17. This decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the Applicant entering into a qualifying long term agreement for the supply of gas and electricity. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of those works are reasonable or payable. A leaseholder retains the right to challenge the costs of the supplies by making application to the Tribunal under section 27A of the 1985 Act.
18. At the end of the hearing the tribunal advised the parties present of this decision with written reasons to follow.
19. The tribunal will send this decision to the 16 leaseholders who have objected and the Applicant will ensure that a copy is provided to all leaseholders exhibited to the first witness statement of [NAME].
Judge D. R. Whitney
5
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
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 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Energy Supply Agreements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation From Consultation Requirements Due …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Major Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Window Replacement Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repair Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift 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 considered urgent and necessary.
- There is no evidence of prejudice to the leaseholders.
- The dispensation is deemed reasonable and proportionate.
- Market conditions prevent compliance with consultation requirements.
- The works are essential and urgent, with no risk of prejudice.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors listed as all cases favored the claimant)
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 for entering into a long-term agreement for gas and electricity supply.
Who was involved?
Housing associations and leaseholders were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because it recognised the challenges in complying with statutory requirements under EU Procurement Regulations.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that it is not possible to fully comply with statutory consultation requirements due to EU Procurement Regulations.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the housing associations.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also be able to obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if they can demonstrate similar challenges.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Witness statements and previous decisions were important in supporting the application.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision can apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for permission to appeal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving complex legal issues such as this.
