VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drain Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent repairs to the drains of a residential property. The repairs were necessary due to sewage leaking into a leaseholder's garage, causing health and safety concerns.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary.

Topics

tenancy disputesurgent repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works if it is reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to works on a building or premises, and consultation requirements are detailed rules set by the Secretary of State.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent drain repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs to the drains of a residential property. The repairs were deemed necessary due to sewage seeping into a leaseholder's garage, posing health and safety risks.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : MAN/00DA/LDC/2022/0026

Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted]

Ltd.

Representative : [COMPANY]

Respondent: [redacted]

Type of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA

Tribunal Members : [APPELLANT]

[NAME] [NAME] of Decision : 12 September 2022

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

1

Summary Decision 1. The Tribunal gives dispensation from the consultation requirements.

Application 2. On 13 April [ADDRESS] Company Ltd (the applicant) applied for dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’) with regard to works to the drains of [ADDRESS], Wetherby (‘the property’). The applicant considers that the works are needed to be carried out urgently.

3. Directions were issued on 08 July 2022. Those directions made it clear that the application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs resulting from any such works are reasonable or indeed payable and it will be open to lessees to challenge any such charged by the applicant.

4. The Directions considered that the matter is one that can be resolved by way of submissions of written evidence. Further to the Directions, the applicant provided a bundle of documents. The respondents did not provide any statement in response.

The Law 5. Section 20 of the Act limits certain service charges unless the consultation requirements in the section are complied with or dispensed with under section 20ZA is received. Section 20ZA provides:

(1) Where an application is made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.

The Facts 6. The application was made due to sewage seeping into a leaseholders’ garage at the property. The seepage was caused by cracks in three manhole chambers. The leaseholders were informed of the application to the Tribunal on 13 April 2022 as well as the total costs of the works - £8,925.00 plus VAT. Only one quote was provided.

7. The works were completed in May 2022.

8. The applicant asserts that the works are urgent because of the bacteria in the sewage in the sewage creating a health and safety issue.

Decision 9. For the reasons set out in the application we consider that it is reasonable to give dispensation.

2

RIGHTS OF APPEAL 10. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office, which has been dealing with the case.

11. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

12. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, that person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

13. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

3

Annex Flat Number Name Flat 1 Mr [NAME]. and Mrs [NAME] 2 Ms [NAME]. [NAME] 3 Mr [NAME]. and Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] 4 Mr [NAME]. and Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] 5 Mr [NAME]. [NAME] 6 Mr [NAME]. and Mrs [NAME] 7 Mr [NAME]. and Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] 8 Ms [NAME]. [NAME] and Ms [NAME]. [NAME] 9 Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] 10 Mr [NAME]. and [NAME]. [NAME] 11 Mr [NAME]. and Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] 12 Mr [NAME]. [NAME] and Ms [NAME]. [NAME] 13 Mr [NAME]. [NAME] 14 Miss H. [NAME] 15 Mr [NAME]. Boden Flat 16 Mr [NAME]. and Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] 17 Mr [NAME]. and Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] 18 Mr [NAME]. [NAME] 19 Mr [NAME]. and Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] 20 Mr [NAME]. and Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] 21 Mr [NAME]. [NAME] 22 Ms [NAME]. [NAME]

4

Flat 23 Me M. [NAME] 24 Ms. [NAME]. [NAME] 25 Mr [NAME]. [NAME] 26 Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] 27 Mr [NAME]. and Mrs [NAME]. [NAME] 28 Mrs [NAME]. [NAME]

📊 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 urgent.
  • The works are necessary.
  • The works are urgent and necessary for safety.
  • The works are deemed urgent and reasonable.
  • The works are urgent and necessary for health and safety.

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 urgent repairs to the drains of a residential property.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, while various long-term residential leaseholders were affected by the decision.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and necessary to address health and safety issues.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The urgency and necessity of the repairs were the most important arguments.

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 might also be able to obtain dispensation if they can show that the repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgency and necessity of the repairs, including the cost of the work and the health and safety risks, was important.

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?

Yes, it is recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case 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.