The Hansom, Davis House, Bridge Place, London SW1V 1AF LON/00BK/LDC/2025/0791

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00BK/LDC/2025/0791

Between

David House Management LtdApplicant

Before

Judge S Brilliant

Brunsfield Ltd for the Applicant

Date 3 September 2025

DECISION

[1]This application is for dispensation from the consultation requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), pursuant to s.27ZA of the 1985 Act.

[2]Section 20ZA(1) provides that: "Where an application is made to [the FTT] for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works …, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements."

[3]The property is high rise and predominately residential with a commercial unit on the ground floor. Floors 1, 2 and 3 consist of 10 units that have their own ground floor communal entrance. Floors 4 and above consist of 28 units that have a separate ground floor communal entrance. The concierge is located in the reception lobby for units 11 to 38. All floors share the same escape stairway.

[4]There is one lift for the property. At the time of the application, 18 June 2025, the lift had been down for five weeks.

[5]Directions were given on 22 July 2025. Any lessees who opposed the application were directed to inform the Tribunal by 08 August 2025. There are no such objections.

[6]On 20 June 2025, the managing agents wrote to the tenants that explaining the position and that it would not be possible to comply with the dispensation requirements as the work was so urgent. A quote had been obtained from Intelligent Lifts and Escalators in the sum of £13,500 including VAT. None of the other contractors approached was interested in the work.

[7]The leading authority on applications for dispensation is the Supreme Court’s decision in Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson

[2013] UKSC 14

;

[2013] HLR 2

[8]In that case the Supreme Court held that the main, indeed normally, the sole question for the Tribunal when considering how to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with s.20ZA(1) is the real prejudice to the tenants flowing from the landlord’s breach of the consultation requirements. The financial consequences for the landlord of not granting a dispensation is not a relevant factor. The Tribunal may grant dispensation on such conditions as it thinks fit: provided that any such conditions are appropriate in their nature and their effect.

[9]There is no evidence before me of any prejudice and I am satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation.

[10]This decision only relates to dispensation, not to the reasonableness of the work done or its costs. These can be challenged before the FTT if necessary in separate proceedings. Name: Judge Brilliant Date: 03 September 2025 Rights of appeal A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. 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).