First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent drainage repairs at a residential property. This decision was made under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1. The repairs were deemed necessary due to flooding and unpleasant odours caused by non-functional drainage pipes.
⚖️ Legal holding
The tribunal may grant a dispensation from consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
📖 What the law says
Under this section, a tribunal can decide to waive consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to consult tenants or recognized tenants' associations before undertaking certain works or entering into long-term agreements.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted a dispensation from consultation requirements due to urgent drainage issues.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted an application for dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing a landlord to undertake urgent drainage repairs without prior consultation.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BA/LDC/2025/0646 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] Representative : N/A Type of [NAME] : Dispensation pursuant to Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 4 September 2025
DECISION
2 Decision of the Tribunal 1. The Tribunal determines to exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements provided by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The [NAME] 2. [NAME] applied on behalf of the Applicant on 6 February 2025 under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), for dispensation from the consultation requirements provided for by Section 20 of the Act.
3. The [NAME] indicated that the subject of the dispensation [NAME] was in relation to excavation and replacement of drainage pipework and its reconnection to the main system at the Property.
4. The [NAME] explained that the reason that dispensation was sought was because the non-functional drainage pipework was causing flooding, unpleasant odours and the risk of the system backing up into the flats. This meant investigation, excavation and replacement had to be started as soon as possible. Procedure 5. The Tribunal issued directions on 6 June 2025. Following the receipt of an Order No 1 form from the Applicant, revised directions were issued on 23 June 2025 with an amended timetable.
6. In those directions the Tribunal set out that the matter would be determined on the basis of the papers provided.
7. The directions gave an opportunity for the Respondents to request a hearing. No hearing was requested so the matter has proceeded based on the papers provided for the Tribunal.
8. The directions also provided an opportunity for the Respondents to provide a statement objecting to the [NAME]. No responses were received by the Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal has considered the written bundle of 47 pages, in support of the [NAME].
3 Determination The Background 10. The property is a standalone block of flats with 24 units. The Applicant is the [COMPANY].
11. The evidence and submissions of the Applicant is as follows: i. The [NAME] is for an unconditional dispensation of the consultation requirements prescribed under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to works to investigate a blockage in the drainage system, excavate and replace shattered pipework. The extent of the work required council licences and a traffic management plan. A tanker was also required to manage the problem until the pipework was replaced. ii. A quotation of £31,414.90 (£26,179.08 +VAT) from [NAME] for excavation, new connection and licensing. iii. An estimate of tanker costs of £6,000. iv. Lining and clearing works confirmed to be instructed at £8,791. v. The works are subject to an insurance claim and whilst the insurer has confirmed they will pay some of the costs, it is yet to be determined the full amount to be covered by the insurer. vi. A letter sent to all Leaseholders to advise of the works required and associated costs. The letter outlines why a Section 20 consultation was not considered possible and confirms an [NAME] for dispensation will be made to the Tribunal. A meeting was offered to address any concerns.
12. In accordance with Tribunal directions, the Applicant notified leaseholders of the [POSTCODE] [NAME], including how to respond. No responses from leaseholders were received by the Tribunal or Applicant. The Law 13. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under Section 20ZA of the Act. The wording of Section 20ZA, subsection (1) provides: ‘Where an [NAME] is made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreements, the
4 tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements’.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 (Daejan) is the leading authority on how the statutory provisions are to be interpreted. The Tribunal’s Decision 15. The Tribunal determines to grant the [NAME]. Reasons for the Tribunal’s Decision 16. The statement from the Applicant explains the reasons the works needed to be actioned quickly without the time afforded by a full Section 20 consultation.
17. No objections were received from leaseholders.
18. The Tribunal therefore determines that it is reasonable to grant the [NAME] sought.
19. Both parties should note that this determination does not concern the issue of whether the service charge costs demanded in connection with the works to the drainage system are reasonable or indeed payable. The Respondents are able, if it appears to them to be appropriate, to make an [NAME] under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as to reasonableness and payability.
Name: [NAME]: 4 September 2025
5 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 [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. 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Emergency Call System Upgrade
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation From Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements for …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Major Works Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation From Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety 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 drainage pipework was not working, causing flooding, bad smells, and a risk of sewage backing up into flats, necessitating urgent repairs.
- The works required quick action, which did not allow enough time for a full consultation process.
- No leaseholders objected to the application for dispensation from the consultation requirements.
- The applicant informed leaseholders about the application and how to respond, but no responses were received.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided to grant the application for dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Who was involved?
The landlord and leaseholders of a residential property were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the dispensation because it was reasonable to do so given the urgency of the drainage repairs.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the drainage repairs were urgent and necessary to address flooding and unpleasant odours.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also seek dispensation from consultation requirements if their repairs are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the urgency and necessity of the repairs, including estimates and quotations for the work, mattered.
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 get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
