VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to carry out urgent drainage work without consulting leaseholders first. This was allowed because the work was deemed urgent and necessary to prevent further damage and rising costs.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord can obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent.

Topics

urgent worksconsultation requirements

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

Under this section, a landlord can apply to a tribunal for permission to bypass consultation requirements related to certain works or long-term agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent drainage works.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent drainage works. The decision was based on the urgency of the works and the potential for further damage and increased costs if delayed.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : MAN/00FF/LDC/2022/0042

Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] : section 20ZA Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Members : Mr [APPELLANT] Mr [NAME] ([NAME])

Date : 27 September 2022

DECISION AND REASONS

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

2

Decision

1. The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 under section 20ZA of that Act.

The Application

2. On the 13 June 2022 the applicant made an application for dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to urgent works on the drains servicing the property.

3. By directions dated the 11 July 2022 the applicant was sent to the respondents with a direction that any respondent who opposes the application may sent a statement in response to the Tribunal and the applicant within 21 days. That time period was extended to the 22 September 2022 in subsequent correspondence. No respondent has responded to this application.

The Law

4. The Tribunal can grant dispensation under section 20ZA in relation to qualifying works if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements set out in section 20 of the 1985 Act.

Reasons for Granting Dispensation

5. The Tribunal can grant dispensation if dispensation from the requirements to consult is reasonable.

6. We are satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation due to the urgent nature of the works. We note that the applicant obtained a drainage report on the 16 March 2022 which indicated that part of the drainage system was subject to root damage and that the remedial costs for the works would be in the sum of £2200. At that time the applicant decided to delay the works to allow other, more urgent works to proceed, such as repairs to rotting window frames. Following completion of these works, a further drainage report was obtained in June 2022 which indicated a substantial deterioration in the condition of the drain had occurred during the three-month period. By that time the costs had increased to £3050 and it became apparent that the works were urgent and any further delay may result in further damage and increased costs.

7. It follows that we accept that works are urgent and that in all the circumstances of the application, including any prejudice to the respondents, we are satisfied that dispensation should be granted.

3

8. The parties are reminded, as was set out in the directions, that this decision has no bearing on any issues under sections 18 and 27A of the Act as to the reasonableness and payability of any service charge costs resulting from the works.

9. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law only. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.

P Barber Tribunal Judge 27 September 2022

4

Annex A

Respondent [RESPONDENT] Mr [NAME] Mr & Mrs [NAME] H [NAME] [NAME] Mr [NAME] Ms [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 deemed urgent by the court.
  • The works are considered necessary for the property.
  • The works are also seen as reasonable in the circumstances.
  • The landlord seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  • The court grants dispensation when the works meet the criteria of urgency, necessity, and reasonableness.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors listed as all cases were allowed)

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 proceed with urgent drainage works without consulting the leaseholders first.

Who was involved?

The landlord and various leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and could cause further damage if delayed.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20 and Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency of the drainage works and the potential for further damage if the works were delayed.

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 be able to get permission to carry out urgent works without consulting tenants if the works are truly urgent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Drainage reports indicating the urgent need for the works were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law only.

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 disputes.

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.