VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Entry Phone Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for replacing an entry phone system in a residential building. The Tribunal ruled that it was reasonable to dispense with the requirements because of the urgent need to complete the works without delay.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispense with consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so.

Topics

tenancy disputesconsultation requirements

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 permission to skip consultation requirements if it finds that skipping these requirements is reasonable. Consultation requirements refer to the obligations placed on landlords to consult tenants before making changes or entering into long-term agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for replacing an entry phone system.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for replacing an entry phone system in a residential property. The Tribunal found it reasonable to dispense with the requirements due to the urgent need to complete the works without undue delay.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BD/LDC/2021/0240 HMCTS code : P: PAPER REMOTE Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] ([NAME]) Respondents : [redacted] Mr Mrs [NAME] (Flat 2); Mr [NAME] & Ms [NAME] (Flat 3); Mr [NAME] (Flat 4); and Ms [NAME] (Flat 5) Type of [NAME] : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :

Judge Robert Latham

Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 22 November 2021

DECISION

The Tribunal grants this [NAME] to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 without condition in respect of the replacement of the entry phone system.

2 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPER REMOTE. The Directions provided for the [NAME] to be determined on the papers unless any party requested a hearing. No party has requested a hearing. The applicant has filed a bundle in in support of the [NAME]. The [NAME]

1. By an [NAME] dated 30 July 2021, [COMPANY] (“TPM”) seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”). TPM are managing agents for the landlord, [RESPONDENT]. The [NAME] relates to [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“the Property”). This was originally a Salvation Army Meeting Hall which was converted in 2006 to create five self-contained fats on the ground and two upper floors.

2. In September 2020, following the installation of a new entry phone system by [COMPANY] (“[NAME]”), [NAME] identified a problem of gaining access to Flat 4 which was empty at the time as a sale was pending. Additional charges were incurred as it was necessary to gain access at a later date. This apparently took the relevant contribution for one or more of the leaseholders over the £250 threshold for qualifying works. The cost of the additional works was £185 + VAT. The Applicant states that Section 20 Notices were served and that two quotes were obtained.

3. On 5 October 2021, the Tribunal issued Directions. The Tribunal stated that it would determine the [NAME] on the papers, unless any party requested an oral hearing. No party has done so.

4. By 19 October, the Applicant was directed to send to each of the leaseholders (and any residential sublessees) by email, hand delivery or first-class post: (i) copies of the [NAME] form (excluding any list of respondents’ names and addresses) unless also sent by the Applicant; (ii) if not already detailed in the [NAME] form, a brief explanation for the reasons for the [NAME] and (iii) a copy of the directions. The Applicant was also directed to display a copy in a prominent position in the common parts of the Property.

5. On 20 October, TPM confirmed that it had complied with this Direction.

6. By 2 November, any [NAME] who opposed the [NAME] was directed to complete a Reply Form which was attached to the Directions and email it both to the Tribunal and to the Applicant. The [NAME] was further directed to send the applicant a statement in response to the

3 [NAME]. No [NAME] has returned a completed Reply Form opposing the [NAME].

7. The Applicant has emailed the tribunal a bundle of documents in support of their [NAME]. The bundle includes a copy of the lease for Flat 1. It also includes two invoices from [NAME]. The first invoice (at p.48) is dated 12 October 2020 and is in the sum of £625 + VAT for the replacement of the door entry system. The second invoice (at p.46) is dated 20 November 2020 and is in the sum of £185 + VAT for the additional cost of completing the door entry handset installation. These two invoices total £972. It is not clear which lessees will be required to pay more than the threshold for qualifying works of £250.

8. Section 20ZA (1) of the Act provides: “Where an [NAME] is made to the appropriate 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.”

9. The only issue which this Tribunal has been required to determine is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

10. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements. This is justified by the urgent need to complete the entry phone works without undue delay. There is no suggestion that any prejudice has arisen. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant dispensation without any conditions.

11. The Directions make provision for the service of the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal will email a copy of its decision to the Applicant. The Applicant is responsible for serving a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on the leaseholders. The Applicant should explain how much each of the leaseholders will be required to pay in respect of these qualifying works.

Judge Robert Latham 22 November 2021

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 by e-mail 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 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 tribunal found it reasonable to skip consultation because the entry phone works needed to be completed quickly.
  • No party who opposed the application returned a completed reply form.
  • The leaseholders did not object to the remote hearing format.
  • No party requested an oral hearing, so the tribunal determined the application based on the submitted papers.

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 certain consultation requirements for replacing an entry phone system.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of a residential property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the landlord's request because it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements due to the urgent need to complete the works.

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 the urgent need to complete the works without undue delay.

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 be able to bypass consultation requirements if there is an urgent need to complete works without delay.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgent need to complete the works and the costs involved were considered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal matters.

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.