How Major Works Dispensation Is Working

In a recent case, a landlord obtained dispensation from the First-tier Tribunal following the consultation requirements imposed by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. In this case, the landlord’s managing agent was in dire need of replacing a pump-set and associated electrical equipment that supplied the landlord’s building with water. The landlord faced the real prospect of the pump-set catastrophically failing before it had chance to complete full consultation with the leaseholders.

In its decision, the FTT recognised that the landlord had a “compelling case for dispensing with the consultation requirements” in that should the landlord delay commencing the urgent works to the pump-set then the leaseholders would suffer “considerable inconvenience in the event that the current pump-set fails before it is replaced”. The FTT summarised that the “balance of prejudice clearly favours undertaking the proposed works without delay”.

The success of this application clearly hinged on the following:

The landlord acted promptly in bringing the application as soon as the problem was identified.

The extent of the problem was verified by an expert consultant.

The landlord immediately proceeded to obtain four quotations for the proposed works.

The landlord used the FTT’s directions to supply a statement of case detailing the consultant’s opinion of the extent of the problem and also to provide the leaseholders with copies of the quotations obtained.

It was therefore fundamentally clear to the FTT that dispensation was required given that an expert had verified that these works could not be delayed any longer. Furthermore, the landlord had used the directions to at least comply with some aspects of the Section 20 consultation requirements.

The above decision demonstrates the FTT’s tendency to utilise the guidance given to it by the decision in Daejan, which clearly provides the property management sector with some welcome respite when faced with dealing with urgent major works.

In the days leading up to the eagerly anticipated outcome of the appeal in Phillips & Goddard v Francis & Francis this can only provide welcome relief to the property management sector, when faced with dealing with the potential of racking up extensive expenditure on maintenance and repair works within a service charge year.