Regional Judge WhitneyDate 21 November 2025Property: Pembroke Manor, Whitebeam House, Carter Court, Hook, Hampshire RG27 9GHType of application: To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
DECISION
This is a formal order of the Tribunal which must be complied with by the parties. Communications to the Tribunal MUST be made by email to rpsouthern@justice.gov.uk. All communications must clearly state the Case Number and address of the premises. Summary of the Decision[1]The Applicant is granted 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 in relation to the emergency lighting works at Whitebeam House. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of the works are reasonable or payable. Background[5]The Applicant sought 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. The application was received on 17 July 2025. The Property is described in the application as a ‘purpose-built development, constructed between 2016 and 2018, Whitebeam House containing 9 flats.’ The Applicant explained in the application that: Following recent emergency light testing within Whitebeam House, a total of 38 emegency lights and 8 emergency fluroscent's failed testing and require replacement. These are located in the following loactions [sic] of the building. 2x basement, 10x ground floor, 7x stairs, 10x 1st floor, 9x 2nd floor. 5x fluorescent main car park, 3x fluorescent small car park A section 20 is being started, however due to the possible threat to life this requires ugent [sic] review for dispensation. Whilst the block sustains a stay put policy,the lack of emergency lighting still poses a threat to life for the emergency services. Initial Directions were issued on 5 August 2025 (amended on 19 August 2025) and 29 August 2025. Then following confirmation from the 2[7]Applicant that ‘HML PM Ltd’ acts as both the management company and the managing agent for the subject property further Directions were issued on 14 October 2025 listing the steps to be taken by the parties in preparation for the determination of the dispute, if any. The Directions stated that Tribunal would determine the application on the papers received unless a party objected in writing to the Tribunal within 7 days of the date of receipt of the Directions. No party has objected to the application being determined on the papers. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application is not about the proposed costs of the works, and whether they are recoverable from the leaseholders as service charges or the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022. The leaseholders have the right to make a separate application to the Tribunal under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to determine the reasonableness of the costs, and the contribution payable through the service charges. The Law[11]Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) and the related Regulations provide that where the lessor undertakes qualifying works with a cost of more than £250 per lease, the relevant contribution of each lessee (jointly where more than one under any given lease) will be limited to that sum unless the required consultations have been undertaken or the requirement has been dispensed with by the Tribunal. An application may be made retrospectively. The relevant section of the Act reads as follows: S.20 ZA Consultation requirements: Where an application is made to a Leasehold Valuation 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. The appropriate approach to be taken by the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Daejan Investment Limited v Benson et al [2013] UKSC 14. The leading judgment of Lord Neuberger explained that a Tribunal should focus on the question of whether the lessee will be or had been prejudiced in either paying where that was not appropriate or in paying more than appropriate because the failure of the lessor to comply with the regulations. The requirements were held to give practical effect to those two objectives and were a means to an end, not an end in themselves. 3[17]The factual burden of demonstrating prejudice falls on the lessee. The lessee must identify what would have been said if able to engage in a consultation process. If the lessee advances a credible case for having been prejudiced, the lessor must rebut it. The Tribunal should be sympathetic to the lessee(s). Where the extent, quality and cost of the works were in no way affected by the lessor’s failure to comply, Lord Neuberger said as follows: I find it hard to see why the dispensation should not be granted (at least in the absence of some very good reason): in such a case the tenants would be in precisely the position that the legislation intended them to be- i.e. as if the requirements had been complied with. The main, indeed normally, the sole question, as described by Lord Neuberger, for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether, or not, the lessee will be or has been caused relevant prejudice by a failure of the Applicant to undertake the consultation prior to the major works and so whether dispensation in respect of that should be granted. The question is one of the reasonableness of dispensing with the process of consultation provided for in the Act, not one of the reasonableness of the charges of works arising or which have arisen. If dispensation is granted, that may be on terms. There have been subsequent Decisions of the higher Courts and Tribunals of assistance in the application of the Decision in Daejan but none are relied upon or therefore require specific mention in this Decision. Consideration[22]The Directions attached a reply form for the Respondents to complete to confirm whether they agreed with the application or not and if opposed, to provide a statement setting out why they oppose. The Applicant confirmed in an email dated 20 October 2025 that they had sent a copy of the Directions to each of the leaseholders which advised them to return the reply form to the Tribunal with a supporting statement should they object to the dispensation. The Tribunal has not received any objections from the Respondents. The Applicant confirmed in an email dated 18 November 2025 that they had not received any objections from any of the Respondents. Having considered the application and prior to undertaking this determination, I am satisfied that a determination on the papers remains appropriate, given that the application remains unchallenged. 4[29]The reason why dispensation from consultation requirements is said to be required is to carry out the works as swiftly as possible due to the inadequate emergency lighting posing a possible threat to life in the event of a fire. Given the nature of the works and the fact that it related to the safety and welfare of the building and its occupants, I am satisfied that the qualifying works were of an urgent nature. There has been no objection to the dispensation of the consultation requirements from any of the lessees. None of the lessees have therefore asserted that any prejudice has been caused to them. The Tribunal finds that nothing different would be done or achieved in the event of a full consultation with the Lessees, except for the potential delay and potential problems. The Tribunal finds that the Respondents have not suffered any prejudice by the failure of the Applicant to follow the full consultation process. The Tribunal consequently finds that it is reasonable to dispense with all of the formal consultation requirements in respect of the major works to the building as described in this Decision. This Decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying works to the emergency lighting works at Whitebeam House as outlined at paragraph 4. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs are payable or reasonable. If a Lessee wishes to challenge the payability or reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made. In reaching my decision I have taken account of the fact that no party has objected to the application. The leaseholders have had opportunity to raise any objection, and they have not done so.[30]The Tribunal will send a copy of this Decision to each of the Respondents so that they are aware of the same. RIGHTS OF APPEAL[31]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 by email at rpsouthern@justice.gov.uk 5[34]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. 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. 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. 6