VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Pump Replacement

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for replacing a faulty pump in a historic building. The decision ensures that necessary repairs can be made quickly without burdening tenants with unnecessary consultations.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are necessary and there is no demonstrated prejudice to the tenants.

Topics

tenancydispensationconsultation requirements

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent pump replacement in a historic building.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for the replacement of a pump providing heating and hot water in a historic building. The Tribunal found the works necessary and completed urgently, with no prejudice to the tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2024/0139 P:Paperremote Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Respondent [NAME] : The [NAME] named on the [NAME] of [NAME] : To dispense with the consultation requirements under S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member(s) : [NAME] and venue of determination : 18 October 2024 Remote on the papers

DECISION

This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the Applicant and not objected to by the Respondent. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, no-one requested the same, and all the issues could be determined on the papers. The documents that I was referred to were in a bundle of 58 pages, the contents of which I have recorded.

2 Decision of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal grants dispensation from all of the consultation requirements under S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to the replacement of one of the pumps which provides heating and hot water to the development. (2) The question of reasonableness of the works or cost was not included in this [NAME], the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation. The Background 1. The [NAME] under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) was made by the Applicant on 21 May 2024.

2. The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 in respect of the replacement of one of the pumps providing heating and hot water to the development and any associated works.

3. Directions were issued on 6 August 2023 requiring the applicant to prepare bundles to include statements (i) Setting out the full grounds for the [NAME], including all of the documents on which the landlord relies and copies of any replies from the tenants; (ii) The [NAME] were asked to confirm whether or not they would give their consent to the [NAME] 30 August 2024. (iii) In the event that such agreement was not forthcoming the [NAME] were to state why they opposed the [NAME] and provide copies of all documents to be relied upon. (iv) The applicant had until 6 September to respond to any objections raised by any leaseholder.

4. The Applicant confirmed that copies of the [NAME] were sent to all the [NAME] by 16 August 2024 and that it was displayed in the common parts.

5. No objections were received from the [NAME].

3 6. The [NAME] were informed in the Directions issued by the Tribunal that the question of reasonableness of the works or cost was not included in this [NAME], the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation. The Evidence 7. Shrewsbury House comprises four blocks of fifty two flats, parts of the development date back to 1519. There were a number of vulnerable residents residing in the development.

8. There were two pumps providing heating and hot water to the development. It became apparent during a routine inspection that one of the pumps had failed. Consequently two quotations were obtained for its replacement. One from [COMPANY] who maintain the system and had reported the fault and a second from Cleanheat. The quotations were similar being in the sums of £13,753 + VAT and £13,244.33 +VAT respectively. The Directors of the [COMPANY] agreed to award the contract to [APPELLANT] since the company was familiar with the system. The Decision 9. The relevant test to be applied in an [NAME] for dispensation was set out by the Supreme Court in [COMPANY] v [NAME] & Ors [2013] UKSC 14 where it was held that the purpose of the section 20 consultation procedure was to protect tenants from paying for inappropriate works or paying an inappropriate amount. Dispensation should not result in prejudice to the tenant.

10. The Tribunal determines from the evidence before it that the works were necessary, were required to be completed urgently and that no prejudice to the lessees has been demonstrated or asserted.

11. On the evidence before it, and in these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the [NAME] for dispensation be granted.

Name: [NAME]: 18 October 2024

4 RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. 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.

2. 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].

3. The [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta- [NAME]-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper- tribunal-lands-chamber

4. 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.

5. 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.

📊 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 necessary.
  • There is no demonstrated prejudice to the tenants.
  • The works are reasonable and do not prejudice the tenants.
  • The works are urgent and necessary.
  • A fair rent reflects current market conditions.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision granted dispensation from consultation requirements for the replacement of a pump providing heating and hot water.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, and the leaseholders were consulted.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were necessary and there was no demonstrated prejudice to the tenants.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the works were necessary and would not cause prejudice to the tenants.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also apply for dispensation if the works are necessary and there is no prejudice to the tenants.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the necessity of the works and the lack of prejudice to the tenants 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.

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.