VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent repairs to a communal hot water cylinder because the repairs were necessary and no one objected.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and no prejudice will result.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent repairshot water cylinder replacement

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

Under this section, a tribunal can grant permission to skip consultation requirements related to certain building 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 under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 due to urgent repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to a communal hot water cylinder at a Victorian terraced house in London.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2019/0156 Property : [ADDRESS], London Applicant: [redacted] : [NAME]) [APPELLANT] Respondent: [redacted] : N/A Types of Application : Section 20ZA - dispensation Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME] and venue of (paper) hearing

: 28 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision

: 28 November 2019

DECISION

Decisions of the tribunal

I The Tribunal grants the application seeking dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the works to replace the hot water cylinder at [ADDRESS].

The application

1. This is an application made under the provisions of section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 2985 (“the 1985 Act”) seeking dispensation from the consultation procedures required under section 20 of that Act in respect of works of replacement to the communal hot water tank.

The premises

2. The premises comprise a Victorian terraced house converted into 9 flats all of which are held on long leaseholds.

Background

3. In March 2019, it was reported to the Applicant’s property manager at [NAME] that the communal cylinder providing hot water to the flats at the subject premises was leaking and had caused damage to 3 of the 9 flats. Investigations into the cause of the leak were carried out and it was subsequently recommended that the hot water cylinder was corroded beyond repair and required replacing. This work was carried out in April 2019 by [NAME] at a cost of £15,582.32 (including VAT).

The Applicant’s evidence

4. In support of the application made on 6 September 2019 and the directions given by the tribunal dated 16 September 2019 (varied 8/10/19), the applicant provided a small bundle of documents on which it relied. These included a short statement from [NAME] of [NAME] dated 13/11/19 detailing the investigations made to identify the fault and the nature and extent of the urgent works that were carried out. A letter dated 14 October 2019 addressed to the lessees notified them of this application, with a copy attached together with the tribunal’s directions. These documents provided the lessees with an opportunity to contact the tribunal if they objected to the application for dispensation from the consultation requirements being granted.

The respondent’s case

5. No objections or any other comments were received by the tribunal from any of the lessees.

The tribunal’s decisions and reasons

6. In making its determination, the tribunal took into account the absence of any objections by the lessees to the application and the absence of any identified prejudice that might be caused to them if the application was to be granted. Therefore, having regard to urgent nature of the works carried out, the tribunal finds that it is reasonable and appropriate to grant the applicant dispensation from the consultation requirements of the 2985 Act.

Signed: Judge Tagliavini

Dated: 28 November 2019

📊 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 hot water cylinder was corroded beyond repair and needed replacement.
  • The communal hot water cylinder was leaking and caused damage to three flats.
  • The works to replace the hot water cylinder were urgent.
  • No objections were received from any of the lessees regarding the application.
  • There was no identified prejudice to the lessees if the dispensation application was granted.

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 the consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

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 repairs were urgent and no leaseholder objected.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from the leaseholders.

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 be able to bypass the consultation process if their repairs are urgent and there are no objections.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from the leaseholders mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, such a decision can be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases 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.