Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out specific consultation requirements that freeholders must follow before carrying out major works costing more than £250 per leaseholder. But what actually happens when they don’t follow those rules? The answer is more nuanced — and more favourable to leaseholders — than most people realise.
The Basic Consequence: The £250 Cap
The primary legal consequence of a freeholder failing to comply with Section 20 consultation requirements is that they can only recover a maximum of £250 per leaseholder for the relevant works through the service charge — regardless of the actual cost.
This is significant. If your building’s roof is repaired for £120,000, shared across twenty leaseholders, each would ordinarily contribute £6,000. But if the freeholder failed to properly follow the Section 20 consultation process, they may only be able to recover £250 from each leaseholder — a total of £5,000 against a £120,000 cost.
This statutory cap is one of the most powerful protections for leaseholders in English law. It exists to incentivise freeholders to genuinely consult, rather than treating consultation as a box-ticking exercise.
Dispensation: The Freeholder’s Safety Net
Here’s the important caveat: a freeholder can apply to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for dispensation from the Section 20 consultation requirements. If granted, dispensation means the £250 cap doesn’t apply, and the freeholder can recover the full cost despite the procedural failure.
The tribunal will grant dispensation if it considers it “reasonable” to do so, taking into account all the circumstances. Crucially, the tribunal considers whether any failure to consult caused any prejudice to the leaseholders. If the failure was purely technical — say, one notice was served a few days late but you received full information and had adequate time to respond — the tribunal may grant dispensation.
If the failure was substantive — you received no genuine opportunity to nominate contractors, the quotes were never shared, or the process was designed to exclude your input — dispensation is less likely to be granted on easy terms, if at all.
Common Section 20 Failures We See
Based on our experience reviewing these cases, the most common Section 20 failures are:
- Only one quote obtained — the law requires at least two
- Notices not served on all leaseholders — particularly common in blocks where some units are sublet and freeholders lose track of addresses
- Insufficient response period — the law requires 30 days; some freeholders give less
- Notices served incorrectly — e.g. by email only, when the lease specifies personal service or recorded post
- Works varied significantly from those in the notice — if the scope changes substantially, a new consultation may be required
- Emergency works claimed without adequate basis — genuine emergencies can bypass consultation, but “emergency” must be real
What You Should Do If Consultation Was Defective
First, document the failure clearly. Compare what you received (or didn’t receive) against what the law requires. If you didn’t receive a Notice of Intention, or the Notice of Proposal didn’t include at least two quotes, or the response period was less than 30 days, note these specifically.
Second, get legal or professional advice. A procedural failure in Section 20 consultation is potentially very valuable to you — but you need to handle it correctly. Raising it with the freeholder informally may give them time to seek dispensation. Depending on your circumstances, it may be better to apply to the tribunal promptly.
Third, don’t assume a procedural failure means you win automatically. The tribunal has discretion on dispensation, and their decision depends on the specific facts. The strongest cases are those where both procedural failure and substantive overcharging are demonstrated together.
Procedural Failure + Inflated Costs = Strong Case
In our experience, the most compelling cases combine two elements: a genuine failure in the Section 20 consultation process (so the freeholder is procedurally vulnerable) and an independent assessment showing the costs are also above market rate (so even if dispensation is granted, the charges are reduced).
When you have both, the freeholder faces a difficult choice: apply for dispensation and risk a full costs scrutiny, or negotiate a settlement. Most choose to negotiate.
Think your bill might be inflated? Get an independent assessment from Section20.org.uk — 48-hour turnaround, fixed fee. Email info@rapidqs.uk, WhatsApp us at +44 7438 628277 (5-minute response guaranteed), or fill in our contact form at section20.org.uk