VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for repairing urgent defects in a building's waste pipework. The repairs were necessary to prevent further damage and were completed without causing harm to the tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are necessary and urgent, and no prejudice to the tenants is shown.

Topics

tenancy disputesrepair works

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs to waste pipework.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to defective external pipework in a residential property. The repairs were deemed necessary and urgent, with no prejudice to the leaseholders.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2021/0086 P:Paperremote Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent [NAME] :

The [NAME] named on the application Type of application : To dispense with the consultation requirements under S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member(s) : [NAME] and venue of determination : 8 November 2021 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 emailed to the Tribunal, 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 repairs to and rerouting of waste pipework to flat 3. The defective external pipework was causing a major leakage into the building. The cost of the works is £8,946.00 including VAT. (2) The question of reasonableness of the works or cost was not included in this application, the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation. The Background 1. The application under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) was made by the applicants on 24th March 2021.

2. The application concerned the re-routing and replacement of pipework to mitigate further damage to the building.

3. Directions were issued on 23 April 2021 requiring the applicant to prepare bundles by 4 June 2021 to include statements (i) Setting out the full grounds for the application, 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 by 21st May 2021 whether or not they would give their consent to the application. (iii) In the event that such agreement was not forthcoming the [NAME] were to state why they opposed the application; and provide copies of all documents to be relied upon.

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

5. 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 application, the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation. The Evidence 6. [ADDRESS] is an early twentieth century building which has been converted into six flats.

3 7. In July 2020 the [NAME] of Flat 2 reported water ingress from the flat above. [NAME] were instructed to attend and clear the gutters of any blockages. 8. [NAME] attended again and were able to gain access to Flat 3. It was apparent that the problem was due to a corroded external soil pipe into which the waste from the shower in Flat 3 discharged.

9. It was considered that the repair should be undertaken as a matter of urgency as the water ingress was continuing and the occupants of Flat 3 required use of the shower.

10. Scaffolding was erected, the external brickwork was excavated, the waste pipes from the sink and shower in Flat 2 isolated and capped off. The wastes were re-routed into the external stack complete with a backflow check and the walls made good.

11. A further inspection was carried out to ensure that the repairs were successful and the scaffold struck. The Decision 12. The relevant test to be applied in an application 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.

13. 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.

14. On the evidence before it, and in these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the application for dispensation be granted.

Name: [NAME]: 8 November 2021

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

4 1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

3. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The application 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 making the application 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

  • Works are necessary and urgent.
  • No prejudice to the tenants is shown.
  • Landlord meets the statutory requirements.
  • Tenants are entitled to purchase the freehold interest if the landlord cannot be found.
  • Satisfactory progress and no substantive dispute.
  • Emergency repairs can be exempt from consultation requirements under certain conditions.

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 waste pipework.

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 dispensation because the repairs were necessary and urgent, and there was no evidence of prejudice to the tenants.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the repairs were necessary and urgent, and there was no prejudice to the tenants.

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 for urgent repairs if the work is necessary and there is no prejudice to the tenants.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing the urgency and necessity of the repairs 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?

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.