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 consultation requirements for urgent repairs to a collapsed drainage system. The decision was based on the necessity and urgency of the work.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary.

Topics

urgent repairsdispensation from consultation

Provisions

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

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant a request to waive consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it determines that waiving these requirements is reasonable.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to a collapsed part of the foul water drainage system.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AH/LDC/2019/0190 Property : 182 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : Written Application by [NAME]) Respondent : [redacted] application Representative : None. Type of application : Application for dispensation from consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 3 February 2020

DECISION

2

Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements under s20 ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The application 1. The Applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

2. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the Appendix to this decision. The hearing 3. A written application was made by [NAME], the managing agents of the property. The case was decided on paper and no appearances were made. The tribunal considered the written application form, copy letters to the [NAME] and a specimen lease. The background 4. The property which is the subject of this application is a a house converted to two flats. The application states that the foul water waste gully at the rear of the property has collapsed at a cost of £645.00 plus VAT. This is above the threshold for consultation under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and dispensation is sought from the consultation requirements as the works are urgent.

5. A specimen lease has been provided. A list of [NAME] has been provided with confirmation from the agents that they have been notified of the proposed works. No representations have been received objecting to the application as to the scope of the works or appropriateness of the application.

6. The tribunal notes that clause 10(b) of the fourth schedule to the lease allows the landlord to recover the cost of improvements to the Estate and/or Block.

7. The works fall within the landlords repairing covenants of the lease and the cost is recoverable under the service charge provisions, subject to any challenge under s27 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

3 The tribunal’s decision 8. The tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of under s20 ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 9. The works are required to remedy a collapsed part of the foul water drainage. The [NAME] are aware of the position and have not objected. The tribunal is satisfied that the works are necessary as a matter of urgency in the circumstances and for the convenience of the residents, grants dispensation.

Name: [NAME] [NAME]: 3 February 2020

4 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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. 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. 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. 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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

5 Appendix of relevant legislation

S20 Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements

(1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) a leasehold valuation tribunal.

(2) In this section "relevant contribution", in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement.

(3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount.

(5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.

(6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount.

(7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.[FN1]

6 [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

[POSTCODE] Consultation requirements: supplementary

(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 [NAME], 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 [COMPANY] representing them, (b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c) to invite tenants or the [COMPANY] 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 [COMPANY] 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]

7 [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

📊 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 landlord proves the urgency and necessity of the works.
  • The court recognizes the exceptional circumstances justifying bypassing consultation requirements.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No applicable factors listed in the provided similar cases.)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord requested dispensation, while the leaseholders were notified but did not object.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and necessary for the convenience of residents.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the works were urgent and necessary was the most important.

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 if their repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Letters to leaseholders, a specimen lease, and confirmation of notification were 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 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.