Landlord Dispensation Applications Explained
A consultation failure isn't the end of the story for a landlord - here's the process that can let them recover costs anyway, and why it matters to understand it.
Fact-checked against the England Section 20 / service charge framework · Last reviewed 22 August 2026
What dispensation actually is
Under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord who hasn’t fully complied with the consultation requirements can apply to the First-tier Tribunal for dispensation from some or all of those requirements. Without dispensation, the amount the landlord can normally recover is limited to £250 per leaseholder for qualifying works, or £100 per leaseholder in an accounting period for a qualifying long-term agreement - but if dispensation is granted, the landlord may be able to recover more than those amounts. This matters because it means a consultation failure, on its own, doesn’t automatically limit what a leaseholder can ultimately be charged to those statutory thresholds.
The leading case: Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson
The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson set the approach tribunals generally take to these applications. Rather than focusing mainly on how serious the landlord’s consultation failure was, the court held that the tribunal’s focus is generally on whether the consultation failure caused the leaseholders relevant prejudice - including whether it deprived them of a meaningful opportunity to examine proposals, comment on the works or costs, or put forward an alternative contractor where nomination rights applied. Dispensation may be granted subject to conditions intended to address that prejudice, and the tribunal may make appropriate orders concerning reasonable costs.
What “prejudice” means in practice
This is a fact-specific question a tribunal weighs case by case. Prejudice isn’t limited to proving the final outcome definitely would have been different - it also covers prejudice to a leaseholder’s ability to participate in the statutory process, such as a specific contractor they wanted considered who was never approached, being unable to scrutinise the estimates obtained, or a cost that would plausibly have been lower had proper competitive quotes been obtained. A general sense that the process “wasn’t done right” isn’t automatically the same as being able to point to a specific way your ability to participate or comment was actually affected.
Why this matters for how you approach a consultation question
It’s worth raising a genuine consultation concern - the process exists precisely so leaseholders can flag issues like a missed notice or a contractor that was never considered. But it’s equally worth going in with realistic expectations: a tribunal weighing a dispensation application isn’t simply asking “was every step followed,” it’s asking whether the failure caused identifiable financial or other relevant prejudice to your ability to participate in the consultation. Framing your own questions around specifics - “was my nominated contractor actually approached,” “were the quotes genuinely compared” - is more useful than a general complaint that consultation “wasn’t followed.”
This is a tribunal question, not something this guide decides
Whether a specific case would meet the prejudice threshold is a legal judgment only a tribunal (or a solicitor advising on your specific facts) can make. This guide, and a Defence Pack built from your documents, can help you organise exactly what happened and when - which is the raw material any prejudice argument would need - without drawing that legal conclusion for you.
Related guides
Ready to build your Defence Pack?
Upload your notice and we’ll organise your evidence against every issue area that applies, then draft a clear observation letter you control.
Build My Defence Pack