VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Drainage Repairs Due to Dry Rot

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements when carrying out urgent drainage repairs due to a dry rot infestation. The decision was made because there was no evidence that the repairs would harm the tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if there is no evidence of prejudice to tenants.

Topics

dispensation from consultation requirementsdry rot infestationunderground drainage repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.27ZA

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for a landlord to carry out drainage repairs due to a dry rot infestation. The decision was based on the lack of evidence showing prejudice to tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BJ/LDC/2025/0910 Applicant: [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] attached to the [NAME] : 14 - 18 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tribunal : Judge Brilliant Date of decision : 16 December 2025

DECISION © CROWN COPYRIGHT

1. This [NAME] is for dispensation from the consultation requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), pursuant to s.27ZA of the 1985 Act.

2. Section 20ZA(1) provides that: "Where an [NAME] is made to [the FTT] for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works …, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements."

3. The property is a Victorian Mansion block comprising 9 flats in the borough of Wandsworth, London.

4. The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements resulting from a drain survey which identified various cracks in the underground drainage serving the building and recommended works following that drain survey.

5. Flats 14, 14A and the interconnecting hallway all suffer from a dry rot infestation and specialist dry rot treatment, which is the subject of a guarantee, is underway and has been ongoing since May 2025. When one of the ground floor flats was stripped out, it became apparent that the subsoil was wet. This is what prompted the need for the drain survey.

2

6. The survey identified cracking in several of the flats since the dry rot treatment started. A leak to the below ground drainage is the most likely explanation for the dry rot outbreaks.

7. Underground drainage repairs have already been carried out at a cost of £8,120.40. The Applicant states these were required to be done urgently as there were fears that the specialist dry rot treatment, which is the subject of a guarantee, may not be honoured if the underlying cause of the infestations remains left.

8. Further works have been recommended in the sum of £2,373.60. The total cost of works is £10,494.00.

9. Directions were given on 15 November 2025. There have been no objections.

7. The leading authority on applications for dispensation is the Supreme Court’s decision in [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] HLR 2.

8. In that case the Supreme Court held that the main, indeed normally, the sole question for the Tribunal when considering how to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with s.20ZA(1) is the real prejudice to the tenants flowing from the landlord’s breach of the consultation requirements. The financial consequences for the landlord of not granting a dispensation is not a relevant factor. The Tribunal may grant dispensation on such conditions as it thinks fit: provided that any such conditions are appropriate in their nature and their effect.

9. There is no evidence before me of any prejudice and I am satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation.

10. This decision only relates to dispensation, not to the reasonableness of the work done or its costs. These can be challenged before the FTT if necessary in separate proceedings.

Name: Judge Brilliant

Date: 16 December 2025

Rights of appeal

A written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

3

The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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

  • There is no evidence of prejudice to tenants.
  • It is reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements.
  • The works are urgent and necessary.
  • The works are essential and there is no prejudice to tenants.
  • The works are urgent and there is no substantial prejudice to the respondents.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant dispensation from consultation requirements for drainage repairs due to a dry rot infestation.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the leaseholders of the property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because there was no evidence of prejudice to the tenants.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 27ZA, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that there was no evidence of prejudice to the tenants.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also seek dispensation from consultation requirements if they can show there is no prejudice to tenants.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the dry rot infestation and the urgency of the drainage repairs mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions 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 get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

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.