Tribunal Grants Landlord Permission to Replace Warden Call System Without Tenant Consultation
📌 In brief
In this case, the First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process with tenants because the work to replace a broken warden call system was deemed urgent and necessary.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent and necessary works under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, provided the works are deemed urgent and necessary by the Tribunal.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to obligations placed on landlords to consult tenants before undertaking certain works 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 urgent replacement of a warden call system under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent works to a warden call system, finding the works to be urgent and necessary.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/00HN/LDC/2019/0063
Property
:
[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant
:
[redacted]
:
---
Respondents
:
[redacted]
Representative
:
---
Type of Application
:
To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works
Tribunal Member(s)
:
Judge P J Barber
Date and Venue of Hearing
:
Determination on Papers
Date of Decision
:
12 September 2019
DECISION
2 The Application
1. The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act.
2. The Applicant explained that the warden call system requires replacement as the existing system has broken and is beyond repair.
3. The Application for dispensation was received on 12 August 2019.
4. On 14 August 2019 the Tribunal directed the Respondents to provide a response to the Application by 27 August 2019 by completing a form indicating whether they agreed or disagreed with the application and whether they were content for the case to be heard on the papers.
5. The Applicant served the Tribunal with a hearing bundle of documents on 6 September 2019. . Determination
6. The Tribunal is satisfied from the application and the documents that the works to the warden call system are urgent and necessary. The Tribunal received responses from none of the leaseholders in regard to the Application.
7. The Tribunal, therefore, dispenses with the consultation requirements in respect of the proposed works to the warden call system.
8. The Tribunal’s decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying works. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of those works are reasonable or payable. If a [NAME] wishes to challenge the reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.
9. The Tribunal asks the Applicant to inform the leaseholders of this decision by way of noticeboard or other forms of communication.
Judge P J Barber 12 September 2019
3
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) Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Asbestos Remova…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Full Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £2,151.36 Emergency Repair Dispensation for Leaking Water M…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Allows £3,180 Urgent Repairs Without Consultation for Assured Tena…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Decision — Case 4133332
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works in London Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal grants dispensation for £4,961.68 lift repairs in Harpenden
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Major Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £14,600-£26,500 Roof Repairs Without Leaseholder Consent
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Landlord Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Skyligh…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Water System Replacement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £21,864 Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs in Central Lon…
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 landlord proves the necessity and urgency of the works.
- The works are deemed essential for the property's safety or functionality.
- The landlord follows any available procedures for urgent works as closely as possible.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified that went against the claimant in these cases.)
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 the consultation process with tenants for urgent replacement of a warden call system.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over whether the landlord needed to consult tenants before replacing an urgent warden call system.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation from consultation requirements because the replacement of the warden call system was deemed urgent and necessary.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the replacement of the warden call system was urgent and necessary.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing the landlord to proceed without consulting tenants.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, this means that if the work is urgent and necessary, they may also be granted dispensation from consultation requirements.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.