156 Ecclesall Road, 2 William Street, Sheffield, s10 2bg MAN/00CG/LDC/2025/0670
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No MAN/00CG/LDC/2025/0670
Between
Grey GR Limited PartnershipApplicantVarious Residential Long Leaseholders of the PropertyRespondent
Before
Tribunal Judge L. WhiteJ. Jacobs MRICSJB Leitch Limited for the ApplicantVenue Paper determinationDate 12 February 2026Property: Sheffield, s10 2bgType of application: consultation requirements pursuant to S.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 (“the 1985 Act”) (Section 20ZA of the 1985 Act). The reasons for this decision are set out below. The background to the application[1]The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of 1985 Act from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act. Those requirements (“the Consultation Requirements”) are set out in the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”). The application is dated 23 September 2025.[3]The Tribunal did not inspect the Property but we understand the Property consists of a a five-storey mixed-use building with a commercial unit on the ground floor and 36 long-leased residential apartments on the upper floors. The freehold is vested in the Applicant and the Respondents comprise the leaseholders of the 36 apartments.[4]The only issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the Consultation Requirements.[5]A directions order dated 17 November 2025 (“the Directions Order”) set out that the Applicant should send to each Respondent a complete copy of the Applicant’s case including the application form and a copy of the Directions Order. Any Respondent who opposed the application were ordered to send to the Applicant and to the Tribunal a statement in response which included any documents relied on. The Applicant was given the opportunity to provide final statements in reply with 7 days of expiry of the date by which the Respondents.[6]The Applicant provided a bundle of documents, which included amongst other items a copy of the Tribunal application form, a statement of case explaining why the application has been made to the Tribunal, a Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls and Attachments report (“FRAEW”) carried out by CHPK Fire Engineering Ltd (“CHPK”) dated 21 May 2024 and correspondence to the leaseholders in relation to the works.[7]The application relates to the following proposed works to the Property as set out in the statement of case dated 23 September 2025 (“the Statement of Case”):(a) External Wall Type 2: Timber - Removal and replace timber constructions with a suitable alternative that achieves Euroclass A2-s1, d0 or better (non-combustible class) and install cavity barriers at the relevant locations in conjunction with current Building Regulations in Approved Document B.(b) External Wall Type 3: Remove and replace combustible spandrel panels with materials that achieve A2-s1, d0 or better and install cavity barriers at compartment lines and around openings in line with Approved Document B.(c) External Wall Type 4: Remove and replace the combustible Grille Spandrel Panel with materials that achieve A2-s1, d0 or better and install cavity barriers at compartment lines and around openings in line with Approved Document B.(d) External Wall Type 5: Remove and replace the combustible Balcony Door Grille Spandrel Panel with materials that achieve A2-s1, d0 or better and install cavity barriers at compartment lines and around openings in line with Approved Document B. Collectively (“the Works”)[8]Approved Document B, referred to above, is a government approved guidance document under the Building Regulations 2010, detailing mandatory fire safety standards for building design, construction and use.[9]The Works have not yet been undertaken. The Applicant states the Works are required to be completed as soon as practicable considering the extent of the combustible materials within the external walls of the Property, providing a high risk to life as set out in the FRAEW.[10]The Applicant has appointed project managers in respect of the Works being Tuffin Ferraby Taylor LLP (“TFT”) who have initiated a tender process to select a suitable contractor for the Works who will be engaged on a design and build basis. The Applicant submits that the design and build contract procurement route does not satisfy the Consultation Requirements as TFT have already been appointed as project managers, CDM advisors and cost consultations to provide specialist advice for the Works and therefore they form part of the Works project. In addition, the Applicant states that due to the tender exercise it would be unable to comply with stage 2 of the Consultation Requirements in that it would be unable to obtain quotes from any contractors nominated by the leaseholders.[11]The Applicant states it did on 15 November 2024 enter into a pre-construction services agreement with contractor Clear Line Maintenance Limited (“Clear Line”) on the advice of TFT.[12]The Applicant sets out in the Statement of Case the Property qualified for assessment under the Cladding Safety Scheme (“CSS”).[13]The CSS is a government funded programme managed by Homes England launched in July 2023. It provides funding to meet the cost of addressing life safety fire risks associated with cladding on residential building over 11 metres in height in England.[14]The Applicant states in the Statement of Case that an application was made to the CSS for funding and that it received confirmation of pre-tender support funding on 20 February 2025 followed by Homes England confirming on 10 March 2025 the Property is eligible for full CSS funding with the applicant signing a grant funding agreement dated 6 March 2025.[15]The Applicant states the Leaseholders have been kept up to date in relation to the Works and various correspondence has been sent between October 2020 and September 2025.[16]The Applicant has advised that the Respondents have been provided with the documents required by the Directions Order on 9 December 2025. Two responses have been received. One from Mr A Parsons leaseholder of apartment 2 of the Property, and one from Mr J Cryer and Ms A Varma, leaseholders of apartment 34 of the Property.[17]Mr Parsons confirmed that he did not oppose the Applicant’s. application for dispensation.[18]Mr Cryer and Ms Varma confirmed that they did oppose the Applicant’s application. Various reasons were set out which included a failure by the applicant to set out certain information, the updates provided falling short of the Consultation Requirements, although the urgency for the Works is understood that is not a reason to avoid due process and absence of leaseholder input on the two-stage tendering process.[19]The Applicant provided a Statement of Case in Reply dated 7 January 2026 (“the Reply”) in which it concludes that the objection raised by Mr Cryer and Ms Varma do not establish any relevant prejudice arising from the absence of following the Consultation Requirements and that the focus of the Tribunal when considering these types of applications must be on the relevant prejudice if any as per Daejan Investments Limited v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 and Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited v Leaseholders of Sovereign View [2023] UKUT 174 (LC)[20]The Directions Order set out that the matter would be dealt with by way of a determination on the papers received unless any of the parties made representations within 42 days of the date of those directions. No representations have been made.[21]The Tribunal did not inspect the Property and it considered the documentation and information before it as set out above. Grounds for the application[22]The Applicant set out in its application that the Works are required to be completed as soon as practicable considering the extent of the combustible materials within the external walls of the Property, providing a high risk to life as set out in the FRAEW. The Applicant submitted that due to how the tender process for the Works was being carried out this means not all the stages in the Consultation Requirements could be carried out.[23]The Applicant has not yet carried out the Works. The Issues[24]This decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of the Works. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs for the Works are payable or reasonable. If a Lessee wishes to challenge the payability or reasonableness of the costs for the Works as service charges, including the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022, then a separate application under section 27A of the 1985 Act would have to be made. Law[25]Section 18 of the 1985 Act defines what is meant by “service charge”. It also defines the expression “relevant costs” as: the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a superior landlord, in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable.[26]Section 19 of the 1985 Act limits the amount of any relevant costs which may be included in a service charge to costs which are reasonably incurred, and section 20(1) provides: Where this section applies to any qualifying works … the relevant contributions of tenants are limited … unless the consultation requirements have been either–(a) complied with in relation to the works … or(b) dispensed with in relation to the works … by the appropriate tribunal.[27]“Qualifying works” for this purpose are works on a building or any other premises (section 20ZA(2) of the Act), and section 20 applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00 (section 20(3) of the 1985 Act and regulation 6 of the Regulations).[28]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.[29]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.[30]Section 20ZA (1) of the 1985 Act relates to Consultation Requirements and provides as follows: 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.[31]Reference should be made to the Regulations themselves for full details of the applicable Consultation Requirements. In outline, however, they require a landlord (or management company) to:• give written notice of its intention to carry out qualifying works, inviting leaseholders to make observations and to nominate contractors from whom an estimate for carrying out the works should be sought;• obtain estimates for carrying out the works, and supply leaseholders with a statement setting out, as regards at least two of those estimates, the amount specified as the estimated cost of the proposed works, together with a summary of any initial observations made by leaseholders;• make all the estimates available for inspection; invite leaseholders to make observations about them; and then to have regard to those observations;• give written notice to the leaseholders within 21 days of entering into a contract for the works explaining why the contract was awarded to the preferred bidder if that is not the person who submitted the lowest estimate.[32]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.[33]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) 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.[34]Accordingly, the exercise of the Tribunal’s power to dispense is governed by a determination of whether “it is reasonable” to dispense. Lord Neuberger explained in Daejan at [67]: “while the legal burden of proof would be, and would remain throughout, on the landlord, the factual burden of identifying some relevant prejudice that they would or might have suffered would be on the tenants”.[35]Daejan gives a direction of travel for the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion and a clear steer that where the Tribunal is unable to identify relevant prejudice, dispensation should be granted. The Tribunal has to consider whether any prejudice has arisen out of the conduct of the Applicant and whether it is reasonable for the Tribunal to grant dispensation following the guidance set out above in Daejan. Consideration and Findings[36]The Consultation Requirements are intended to ensure a degree of transparency and accountability when a landlord (or a management company) decides to undertake qualifying works – the requirements ensure that leaseholders have the opportunity to know about, and to comment on, decisions about major works before those decisions are taken.[37]The Works have not yet been completed. The Tribunal must therefore decide whether it is reasonable for the Works to go ahead without the Applicant first complying with the Consultation Requirements. As set out above those requirements are intended to ensure a degree of transparency and accountability when a landlord decides to undertake qualifying works – the requirements ensure that leaseholders have the opportunity to know about, and to comment on, decisions about major works before those decisions are taken. They also ensure that leaseholders are protected from paying for inappropriate work, or from paying more than would be appropriate for necessary work. It is reasonable that the Consultation Requirements should be complied with unless there are good reasons for dispensing with all or any of them on the facts of a particular case.[38]It follows that, for it to be appropriate to dispense with the Consultation Requirements, there needs to be a good reason why the Works cannot be delayed until the requirements have been complied with. In the present case the Works required are to ensure the fire safety of the Property; there is currently combustible materials within the external walls of the Property which provides a high risk to life as set out in the FRAEW. The Respondents have been made aware of the need for the Works for some time whilst the Applicant was carrying out investigative reports and applying for funding available. It can be seen from the correspondence within the papers submitted by the Applicant to the Tribunal that the Respondents have been kept up to date with progress and plans for the Works. The Applicant has engaged with Homes England and CSS in relation to the Works. The Applicant sets out why, due to the nature of the Works and the tender process for the Works, the Consultation Requirements cannot be strictly adhered to.[39]Only one objection to the application has been received, this being from Mr Cryer and Ms Varma. That objection does not in the Tribunal’s view set out or demonstrate any prejudice which would be suffered as a consequence of the Applicant not complying with the Consultation Requirements. It is noted that Mr Cryer and Ms Varma state in their objection email 18 December 2025 “this is clearly an urgent safety issue, so if the freeholder will undertake not to recover any costs from the leaseholders and also undertake to minimise disruption to occupants then we will withdraw our objection.”[40]The Tribunal accepts the Works need to be carried out as soon as possible and that due to the nature of the Works and tendering process being used this would result in non-compliance with the Consultation Requirements.[41]The Tribunal finds that, taking into account that there has been no prejudice identified, the leaseholders in this case will not suffer any prejudice as a consequence of the failure to comply with the Consultation Requirements for the Works and further that there is good reason for dispensing with the Consultation Requirements in this particular case.[42]On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds it is reasonable to allow dispensation in relation to the Works.[43]Nevertheless, the fact that the Tribunal has granted dispensation from the Consultation Requirements for the Works should not be taken as an indication that any service charge costs resulting from the Works are reasonable; or, indeed, that such charges will be payable by the Respondents. Rights of appeal[1]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.[2]If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission to appeal must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.[3]The application for permission to appeal must be arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.[4]If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such applications 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.[5]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 rounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.[6]If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).