Burgess House, 6 St Lukes Road, Whyteleafe, CR3 0ES HAV/43UK/LDC/2026/0030

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No HAV/43UK/LDC/2026/0030

Between

Byrne GroupApplicant

The leaseholders of the PropertyRespondent

Before

Tribunal Judge H Lumby

Mr M E Williams FRICS

HML Property Manager for the Applicant

Date 14 April 2026

Hearing 2026-04-08

Property: Burgess House, 6 St Lukes Road, Whyteleafe, CR3 0ES

Type of application: lessees about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

DECISION

Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal grants the application for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (Section 20ZA of the same Act) in relation to works to replace the flat roof at the Property. The dispensation is conditional on none of the Applicant’s legal costs in applying for dispensation being charged to the leaseholders of the Property, including through the service charge. The background to 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. This application was received on 19 February 2026.

[2]The Property is described as a purpose-built residential development comprising nine flats over three floors. The building has pitched roofs with a central, asphalt covered flat roof. The Applicant says the Property was constructed around 20 years ago.

[3]The Applicant is the landlord of the Property with responsibility to the leaseholders for the provision of certain services. The Respondent comprises its leaseholders.

[4]The application relates to works to replace the flat roof at the Property; the existing flat roof is leaking and tests are understood to indicate repair is no longer an option. The new roof will have contractor and manufacturer guarantees for 25 years.

[5]The works are underway and may be completed within three weeks of the hearing. The Applicant confirmed the works are so far to budget but a specialist contractor may be required to repair damage which has been revealed to gas flues in the roof. There is a contingency with the contractor to cover unexpected expenditure.

[6]The works were said to be urgent because leaks to Flats 7 and 8 have caused considerable damage, rendering Flat 8 uninhabitable. In addition, if the contract with the preferred contractor was not let before March 2026, the cost of the works would rise by 7.5 to 10%.

[7]The Applicant originally proposed to carry out the works using a so-called tin hat approach, with a scaffolding structure covering the exposed roof whilst works were undertaken. However, the tender returns in April 2025 showed costs at over £100,000 so different solutions were proposed. Howe Chartered Surveyors were appointed to oversee a new process, which resulted in September 2025 in a preferred bid from Capital Roofing Limited of £59,342.50 plus VAT; a consultation was apparently commenced based on this. A subsequent bid was received from Everygroup at £56,027 plus VAT. The Applicant proposed to proceed with Everygroup but then discovered that Building Control approval and some upgrades were required to comply with modern standards, the costs of which were not covered by the Everygroup price. Both Everygroup and Capital Roofing were asked to reprice. The latter produced a price of £59,592.50 (including a £5,000 contingency) plus VAT; the Everygroup quote was for £59,335 plus VAT. This was ostensibly slightly cheaper than Capital Roofing; however, that price excluded a £8,000 contingency, which made their price £67,335 plus VAT. As a result, the Applicant choose to proceed with Capital Roofing.

[8]As a result of the need to get the works done to prevent further damage and to avoid the Capital Roofing March cost increase, the Applicant took the decision to abandon the consultation and instead to seek dispensation.

[9]The Applicant has confirmed that that three objections have been received from the Respondent, being from Nadia Ahmed (Flat 1), Raenee Awoonor-Gordon (Flat 3) and Dawn Evident (Flat 4).

[10]The Tribunal did not inspect the Property as it considered the documentation and information before it in the set of documents prepared by the Applicant enabled the Tribunal to proceed with this determination. Hearing

[11]The hearing took place online, using the Tribunal’s CVP system. Mr Tony Dowle of the Applicant attended, accompanied by Ms Soteriou of HML Property Manager. None of the objectors attended. The Tribunal was satisfied that they were aware of the hearing and proceeded in their absence. No one else attended.

[12]The Tribunal had been provided with a bundle from the Applicant comprising 194 pages together the objections received. The contents of all these documents were noted. Submissions

[13]The Applicant explained why the consultation was abandoned, due to the ongoing leaks to the Property and to avoid the increase in the Capital Roofing price. Mr Dowle argued it was in everyone’s interests to proceed with the works without the delay inherent in a statutorily compliant consultation.

[14]In the objectors’ absence, the Tribunal considered their objections. Ms Ahmed argued that the condition of the roof had been overstated and that the consultation was substantially complete; she was concerned that extra costs would result of the lack of consultation, she proposed conditions to address these concerns if dispensation was granted. Both objectors raised similar concerns about the roof condition and abandoned consultation and sought similar conditions. The issues

[15]This decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the qualifying works. 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 as service charges, including the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made. Law

[16]Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) (“the 1985 Act”) and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 require a landlord planning to undertake major works, where a leaseholder will be required to contribute over £250 towards those works, to consult the leaseholders in a specified form.

[17]Should a landlord not comply with the correct consultation procedure, it is possible to obtain dispensation from compliance with these requirements by an application such as this one before the Tribunal. Essentially the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.

[18]The Applicant seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act from all the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by section 20 of the 1985 Act.

[19]Section 20ZA relates to consultation requirements and provides as follows: “(1) 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. (2) In section 20 and this section— “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months. …. (4) In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord—(a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants’ association representing them,

(b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements,

(c) to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates,

(d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and

(e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements. Applicable test

[20]In the case of Daejan Investments Limited v Benson

[2013] UKSC 14

, by a majority decision (3-2), the Supreme Court considered the dispensation provisions and set out guidelines as to how they should be applied.

[21]The Supreme Court came to the following conclusions:a. The correct legal test on an application to the Tribunal for dispensation is: “Would the flat owners suffer any relevant prejudice, and if so, what relevant prejudice, as a result of the landlord’s failure to comply with the requirements?”

b. The purpose of the consultation procedure is to ensure leaseholders are protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than would be appropriate.

c. In considering applications for dispensation the Tribunal should focus on whether the leaseholders were prejudiced in either respect by the landlord’s failure to comply.

d. The Tribunal has the power to grant dispensation on appropriate terms and can impose conditions.

e. The factual burden of identifying some “relevant prejudice” is on the leaseholders. Once they have shown a credible case for prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it.

f. The onus is on the leaseholders to establish: i. what steps they would have taken had the breach not happened and ii in what way their rights under (b) above have been prejudiced as a consequence

[22]Accordingly, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was any “relevant prejudice” that may have arisen out of the conduct of the Applicant and whether it was reasonable for the Tribunal to grant dispensation following the guidance set out above. Consideration

[23]Having read the evidence and listened to the submissions made at the hearing and having considered all of the documents and grounds for making the application provided by the Applicant, the Tribunal determines the dispensation issues as follows.

[24]It is evident that a statutorily compliant consultation has not been carried out by the Applicant. Applying Daejan, the test for it was whether any Respondent has suffered any relevant prejudice, and if so, what relevant prejudice, as a result of that lack of consultation by the landlord. In doing so, it needed to focus on whether any leaseholder has been prejudiced by paying for inappropriate works or paying an inappropriate amount as a result of the lack of consultation.

[25]The Applicant believes that works to replace the flat roof at the Property needed to be completed urgently because leaks to Flats 7 and 8 have caused considerable damage, rendering Flat 8 uninhabitable. In addition, if the contract with the preferred contractor was not let before March 2026, the cost of the works would rise by 7.5 to 10%. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant’s conclusions.

[26]The Tribunal then considered the objections.

[27]The objectors argue that the application overstates the condition of the roof, arguing it was not open to the sky as claimed. The Tribunal agrees there is not evidence to support this claim but finds there are leaks and damage to Flats 7 and 8. Potential overstatement is regrettable but does detract from the fact that damage was occurring and the works needed to be done; it is noted that this is acknowledged by the objectors.

[28]The Tribunal also sympathises with the abandonment of the consultation when it was ascertained that Building Control approval and upgrades to modern standards were required. The objectors’ concerns are that dispensation will allow the Applicant unfettered ability to change the works methodology to something more expensive or materially change the scope of the works.

[29]However, the Tribunal does not agree these concerns amount to relevant prejudice. If the Applicant seeks to do the works in a more expensive fashion, then they can exercise their rights pursuant to section 27A of the 1985 Act to challenge the reasonableness and payability of the works. If the Applicant materially changes the scope of the works, it risks moving outside the scope covered by the dispensation and so having to make a fresh application. In any event, the works are being undertaken with an identified contractor who has emerged from an extensive procurement process. There is limited to no scope for change at this stage, save to address unexpected issues, such as the damaged gas flues. Abandoning the consultation also potentially avoided an increase to the cost of the works.

[30]Ms Ahmed also raised concerns about the Applicant’s requirement to use a Garland type roofing system and approved contractors; however, this has the benefit of a 25 year guarantee which may assist in relation to future roofing costs. The Tribunal considers the Applicant’s approach is reasonable and that this requirement is appropriate; it therefore considers no relevant prejudice arises as a result.

[31]Overall, the Tribunal finds that the objectors have not suffered any relevant prejudice from the lack of consultation.

[32]The Tribunal is of the view that, taking into account the findings above and that there have been no other objections to this application, it could not find prejudice to the leaseholders by the granting of dispensation relating to works to replace the flat roof at the Property. The works were appropriate and leaseholders are not being asked to pay an inappropriate amount due to the lack of consultation. Challenges as to the payability and reasonableness of any amounts demanded for the works can be brought pursuant to section 27A of the 1985 Act.

[33]As a result, the Tribunal believes that it is reasonable to allow dispensation in relation to the subject matter of the application.

[34]The Tribunal considered whether the dispensation should be granted subject to any conditions. The objectors requested various conditions, which we consider in turn:• A cap on the amount recoverable though the service charge for the works – the Tribunal considers that the Applicant needs flexibility to deal with unexpected works; the leaseholders have some protection from the contingency and the progress of the works, more significantly they have the protection of their rights pursuant to section 27A of the 1985 Act. The Tribunal considers this to be adequate protection and so does not agree the requested condition

• No material variation to the scope or contractor without a fresh consultation or Tribunal order – the Tribunal does not consider any such condition appropriate due to the inevitable delay and cost increase that would result. It is likely in any event to be relevant to unforeseen events which the landlord should have flexibility to address

• No recovery of the Applicant’s legal costs for this application – the Applicant has agreed to this condition and dispensation has therefore been made subject to it.

[35]The Tribunal does not consider that any other conditions are appropriate. It therefore concludes that the dispensation should be made solely subject to the agreed condition.

[36]Accordingly, the Tribunal grants the Applicant’s application for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to works to replace the flat roof at the Property. The dispensation is conditional on none of the Applicant’s legal costs in applying for dispensation being charged to the leaseholders of the Property, including through the service charge.

[37]The Applicant shall place a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on dispensation together with an explanation of the leaseholders’ appeal rights on its website (if any) within 7 days of receipt and shall maintain it there for at least 3 months, with a sufficiently prominent link to both on its home page. It should also be posted in a prominent position in the communal areas. In this way, any leaseholder who has not returned the reply form may view the Tribunal’s decision on dispensation and their appeal rights. 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 by email to rpsouthern@justice.gov.uk

[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.