Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Major Works
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for major works because the works were urgently needed. The works included repairing the roof and doing external decorations.
⚖️ Legal holding
It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements where there is an urgent need for works.
📖 What the law says
The appropriate tribunal can grant permission to skip consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for major works due to urgency.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for major works including roof repairs and external decorations at a property in London, finding it reasonable due to the urgent need for the works.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AN/LDC/2022/0243 HMCTS code : P: PAPER REMOTE Property : 77 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondents :
[redacted] : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Robert Latham Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 6 March 2023
DECISION
The Tribunal grants this application to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 without condition in respect of major works which included external decorations and repairs and the replacement of the roof.
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 application 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 application. The Application 1. On 14 November 2022, [NAME], managing agents for the Applicant landlord, applied for retrospective dispensation from the statutory duty to consult in respect of major works which included external decorations and repairs and the replacement of the roof at 77 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] ("the Property"). The Property is a converted block of self-contained flats which were constructed in about 1880. In the 1980s, the property was converted to create five flats. The premises have four storeys (basement, ground and three upper floors).
2. On 4 September 2020, the managing agents served a Notice of Intention in respect of external decorations and repairs. There were delays and the managing agents restarted the process in April 2022. It was decided to add roof repairs to the proposed works. Tenders were sought and on 16 June 2022, the managing agents served a Notice of Estimates. Three tenders were returned and the managing agents proposed to accept the lowest tender from [NAME] in the sum of £59,746 + VAT. In September 2022, the managing agents collected the funds for the works from the lessees.
3. On 22 September, the managing agents sought to instruct [NAME]. However, they were told that [NAME] was no longer willing to proceed with the works. [COMPANY] who had provided the second lowest tender were unable to start until December. The managing agents considered that this was too late. The third tender, from JJW, had been much higher at £84,440 + VAT.
4. The managing agents therefore approached [COMPANY] ("[NAME]). On 11 October, [NAME] returned a tender in the sum of £58,695. This was later adjusted to include additional works which increased the estimate to £63,755 + VAT. This was an increase of £4,009 on the original contract price. On 28 October, the managing agents notified the lessees of their intention to appoint [NAME] to execute the works. The lessees were invited to respond within 7 days if they had any comments. No lessee responded.
5. On 13 January 2023, the Tribunal issued Directions and served both the application and the Directions on the parties.
3 6. By 10 February 2023, any [NAME] who opposed the application was directed to complete a Reply Form which was attached to the Directions and send it both to the Tribunal and to the Applicant. The [NAME] was further directed to send the Applicant a statement in response to the application. No [NAME] has returned a completed Reply Form opposing the application.
7. The Applicant has provided a Bundle of Documents (75 pages) in support of the application. This includes the lease for the first floor flat.
8. Section 20ZA (1) of the Act provides: “Where an application 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 application 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 for the works. 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 Respondents. Judge Robert Latham, 6 March 2023
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 application for permission must be made by e-mail to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.
4 The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application 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 making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application 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) First-tier Tribunal Grants Retrospective Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Automatic Gates Installation Dispensed With Due to Urgent Need
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Works Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Boiler Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repair Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repair 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
- There is an urgent need for works.
- The works are urgent and necessary.
- There is an urgent need to complete essential works.
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 bypass consultation requirements for major works due to urgency.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the leaseholders of a property in London were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements because the works were urgent.
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 for the works.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might also be able to bypass consultation requirements if the works are urgent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the urgent need for the works was important.
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 a case like this.
