VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Allows Landlord to Skip Consultation for Urgent Damp Proofing Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to skip the consultation process for urgent repairs needed due to dampness and mold in a rental property. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent further damage and ensure the safety of the tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be permitted to dispense with consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary to prevent further damage and ensure safety.

Topics

tenancy disputesurgent repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant permission to a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for certain works if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State regarding providing information to tenants about proposed works or agreements.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted permission to dispense with consultation requirements for urgent damp proofing works.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a landlord to dispense with consultation requirements for urgent damp proofing works and other necessary repairs in a residential property. The decision was based on the urgent need to prevent further damage and ensure the safety of the tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2019/0018 Property : 114 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL] of [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] (2) Ms [COUNSEL] (3) Ms [COUNSEL] (4) Mr [COUNSEL] :

Type of application : For the dispensation of the consultation requirements Tribunal member(s) :

Judge S Brilliant

Date and venue of hearing : 25 February 2019 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 25 February 2019

DECISION

2

Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal determines that the applicant has permission to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of damp proofing works and other consequential works (such as rewiring and replacement of bathroom fixtures) in the Lower Ground Flat at 114 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. The application 1. The applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of the works. Background 2. The premises consist of a converted Victorian house with four flats.

3. In early December 2018, the tenant of the Lower Ground Flat called the managing agent notifying the landlord that there was a lot of mould and damp in the flat.

4. The landlord obtained quotations from [RESPONDENT] and other contractors.

5. The damp proof course has been breached. Some of the electrical wiring is no longer working and other defects have appeared in the flat.

6. Tanking is required. The quotations are in the region of £50,000. A preliminary s.20 notice was served on the lessees on 24 January 2019.

7. The landlord has persuaded the insurers to make a significant contribution to the costs, although it is said that the works fall outside the insured risks.

8. The works are obviously urgent to prevent the damp spreading.

9. On 22 January 2019, the landlord sent to each of the lessees a letter explaining the need for the works. A copy of the dispensation application was sent to each of the lessees and a copy hung in the hallway. There have been no objections. The application 9. An application to dispense with the consultation requirements was sent to the Tribunal on 29 January 2019. Directions were given on 1

3 February 2019. It was directed that the application would be heard on the papers unless either party requested an oral hearing. No such request was made. Decision 10. The proposed works are qualifying works. In view of the urgent need to complete them to avoid further damage incurring and to protect the safety of the lessee of the flat, I consider it appropriate to dispense with the consultation requirements in this case. 171 This decision does not relate to the quality of the work carried out or the reasonableness of the cost. Name: [NAME]: 25 February 2019

Rights of appeal

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. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then 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).

4

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The works are considered urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.
  • The works are deemed essential for ensuring safety.
  • The landlord seeks dispensation under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tribunal decides not to order reimbursement of fees due to lack of urgency or necessity.
  • The case involves settling disputes through consent orders rather than addressing urgent works.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision allowed the landlord to bypass the consultation process for urgent repairs due to dampness and mold.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of the affected property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the landlord could skip the consultation process because the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent further damage and ensure tenant safety.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 20ZA was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The urgency of the repairs and the potential danger to the tenants were the most important arguments.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the landlord who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to bypass the consultation process if the repairs are urgent and necessary to prevent further damage and ensure safety.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgent need for repairs and the potential danger to the tenants was presented.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal matters.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.