Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Helibar Works Without Consultation
📌 In brief
The tribunal allowed a landlord to skip consultations for helibar works needed to fix structural issues at a a person in London, as there were no objections from the leaseholders.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are necessary and there are no objections from leaseholders.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for helibar works.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for helibar works to address bowed, leaning, or bulging external walls at a property in London, finding the works necessary and no objections from leaseholders.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME]) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2021/0159 HMCTS code (paper)
P: [NAME] : 48 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted]
: [NAME] Respondents : [redacted] Representative : N/A Type of [NAME] : Section 20ZA – dispensation from consultation Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 31 August 2021
DECISION
2 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face-to- face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and no-one requested the same. The documents that the Tribunal were referred to are in a bundle of 73 pages, the contents of which have been noted. The tribunal’s summary decision (1) The tribunal grants the applicant’s [NAME] for dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the helibar works that are required to the building at 48 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the premises’) as identified in the report of [NAME] dated 5 May 2021.
1. This is an [NAME] seeking the tribunal’s dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of helibar works to the subject premises. These additional works were found to be necessary to rectify a bowed, leaning or bulging external walls while carrying out external works of redecoration for which consultation took place, scaffolding has been erected and which has been said to remain in place.
2. In support of the [NAME], the applicant relied upon the report of [APPELLANT] of [NAME], Chartered Civil & Structural Consulting Engineers dated 25 May 2021.
3. The applicant confirmed that the [NAME] and the tribunal’s directions dated 1 July 2021 had been sent to the six [NAME]. No objection to the additional helibar works was received by the tribunal from any of the lessees and no objections were recorded in the hearing bundle of documents provided by the applicant to the tribunal.
The tribunal’s decision and reasons
4. The tribunal is satisfied that the helibar works that have been identified in the report of [NAME] are necessary. The tribunal also finds that it is in the interests of the respondents to have these works carried out while scaffolding is already in place to address these extra works expeditiously, and to avoid an unnecessary increase in the cost of the scaffolding to the [NAME].
3
5. The tribunal is also satisfied that in the absence of any objection to the carrying out of these works by the [NAME], the tribunal is satisfied they have not been prejudiced by the lack of consultation.
6. Therefore, the tribunal grants the [NAME] sought and dispenses with the consultation requirements in respect of the remedial works required as identified in the report of [NAME] dated 5 May 2021.
Name: Judge Tagliavini
Date: 31 August 2021
Rights of appeal
By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] 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 [NAME], 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Cladding Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Varies Prohibition Order to Allow Residence
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Right to Manage Over Premises
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freeholder Granted Dispensation for Emergency Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements for …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy: Case Summary
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Corrects Minor Error in Tenant's Service Charge
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins: Incorrect Rent Increase Notice Invalidated
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Carry Out Urgent Repairs Without Consulting Tenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Repairs to Prevent Damage
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Works
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 necessary and urgent.
- There are no objections from leaseholders.
- The works address a significant safety issue.
- The landlord complies with the relevant legal provisions.
- The landlord seeks dispensation under specific statutory conditions.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No specific cases provided where the claimant was unsuccessful.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal allowed the landlord to skip consultations for helibar works.
Who was involved?
The landlord and leaseholders of a property in London.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the helibar works were necessary and there were no objections from leaseholders.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The necessity of the helibar works and the lack of objections from leaseholders.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
A landlord may be able to skip consultations if the works are necessary and there are no objections from leaseholders.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The report from Concert Consultancy detailing the need for helibar works.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but only if permission is granted by the First-tier Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor.
