First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drain Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process with leaseholders for urgent drain repairs. The decision was based on the urgent need for repairs and the absence of any financial harm to the leaseholders.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and there is no proven prejudice to any lessee.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to obligations placed on landlords to consult with tenants regarding certain works or agreements.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements due to urgent drain repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent drain repairs after determining that the landlord was unable to consult with the leaseholders due to the urgent nature of the work and that no lessee suffered financial prejudice.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AE/LDC/2019/0022 Property : [ADDRESS] (“The Brondesbury Arms”) [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] Brondesbury Arms Type of application : To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works Tribunal : Judge [NAME] of decision : 25 March 2019
DECISION
The Tribunal has determined that the Applicant shall be granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in relation to urgent drain repairs wall.
Reasons
1. The Applicant made a section 20ZA application, on 23 January 2019 to dispense with the consultation requirements. The subject properties are a mid Victorian brick built public house converted into 14 Self- contained flats constructed over three floors. The building is situated on the corner of [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].
2. The landlord received a report from flat 1 that their toilet and sink was blocking and that work was needed to prevent flooding to the premises.
2 3. The Contractor undertook work to remedy the flooding. The cause of the blockage was found to be a broken non return valve with a flap which blocked the line. The total cost of the work was £4806.00. Due to the urgent nature of the work, the landlord was unable to consult with the leaseholders under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
4. The Tribunal made Directions on 12 February 2019. The Directions required the landlord to send a copy of the application to each of the leaseholders, and to display a copy of the application and the Directions in a prominent position in the common parts of the building.
5. The Directions provided that those leaseholders who opposed the application “shall by 5 March 2019 complete the attached reply form and send it to the tribunal”, together with a statement in response setting out the reason for their opposition to the application.
6. The Tribunal has not received any notice of opposition or responses to the application.
7. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of a lease under which the Applicant is obliged to maintain the property and keep it insured and the lessees are obliged to pay a proportionate share of the costs incurred clause .
8. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] 1 WLR 854, the primary issue when considering dispensation is whether any lessee would suffer any financial prejudice as a result of the lack of compliance with the full consultation process.
9. The Tribunal is satisfied that the costs of the work were incurred in circumstances where the landlord was unable to consult with the leaseholders. Given the lack of objections or any proven prejudice to any lessee, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements.
10. The Tribunal’s decision does not deal with the issue of whether any service charge cost is reasonable or payable. This means that this decision does not affect the right of any leaseholder to seek a determination as to the reasonableness and payability of the service charges in relation to the major works.
Name: [NAME]: 25 March 2019
3 [POSTCODE] Consultation requirements (1) Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation 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. (2) In section 20 and this section— "qualifying works" means works on a building or any other premises, and "qualifying long term agreement" means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months. (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b) in any circumstances so prescribed. (4) In section 20 and this section "the consultation requirements" means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord— (a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants' association representing them, (b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c) to invite tenants or the recognised tenants' association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants' association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements. (6) Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b) may make different provision for different purposes. (7) Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.[...] [FN1] [FN1] ss.20-20ZA substituted for s.20 subject to savings specified in SI 2004/669 art.2(d)(i)-(vi) by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (2002 c.15), Pt 2 c 5 s 151 S20A
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Due to Stor…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Soil Stack Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Due to Water Ing…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Heating Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Hearing
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Major Works
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 deemed urgent.
- No proven prejudice is caused to the lessees.
- Consultation is impossible due to the urgency of the works.
- The works are necessary and urgent.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No significant factors found that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)
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 usual consultation process with leaseholders for urgent drain repairs.
Who was involved?
The landlord and various leaseholders of a residential property were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and there was no proven financial prejudice to any leaseholder.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord was unable to consult with the leaseholders due to the urgent nature of the work.
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 may also be able to bypass the consultation process if they can prove the urgency of the repairs and the absence of financial harm to leaseholders.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence such as a report from a flat about blocked toilets and sinks, and the total cost of the work were considered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
