VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent heating and hot water repairs, ensuring no financial harm to tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant may be granted dispensation from statutory consultation requirements if the work is urgent and no lessee will suffer financial prejudice.

Topics

statutory consultation requirementsdispensation from consultation

Provisions

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

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements if it deems it reasonable to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements due to urgent heating and hot water issues.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent heating and hot water repairs after finding no financial prejudice to lessees. Judge Daley presided over the case.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BD/LDC/2019/0143 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] application Type of application : To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works Tribunal : Judge Daley Mr Barlow FRICS JP Date of decision : 15 October 2019

DECISION

The Tribunal has determined that the Applicant shall be granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in relation to works to address the lack of heating and hot water caused by leaking and damaged pipes connected to the district heating system. This work was recommended by the specialist M&E Consultant, [COMPANY] (at a meeting on 19 July 2019). These details were provided in the statement of [NAME] of [APPELLANT].

Reasons

1. The Applicant is the freeholder of a large estate comprising 247 units, estate grounds and a residents’ leisure centre. The estate comprises 38 freehold houses, the remainder being leasehold apartments split across 8 blocks all of the apartments and the leisure centre are connected to a central heat

2 network system. The property is managed on their behalf by [APPELLANT] [NAME].

2. The Applicant in their statement set out that towards the end of June 2019 they began to experience problems with the communal heating system which resulted in a complete shutdown of the system on 25 June 2019, despite 3 boilers and associated plant having been replaced at the end of 2018, these problems continued. This led to excavation works which found that the pipes serving the apartment blocks and the leisure centre were in an extremely poor state. As a result of these issues the leisure centre was closed, however this has not been taken into account by the Tribunal in determining the urgency of the work.

3. A notice of Intention was served on 24 July 2019 however as a result of the excavation work the situation was made worse and some of the fragile pipes were affected. The Applicant for a dispensation of the consultation requirement to enable the work to be carried out as the work was considered to be urgent as there was a risk that properties would be left without heating and hot water.

4. The Applicant felt that works were too urgent to allow for compliance with the statutory consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 and applied for dispensation from those requirements under section 20ZA of the Act.

5. The Tribunal gave directions on 28th August 2019 requiring the Applicant to display and send to each lessee both the application and the directions. The directions included a pro forma for the [NAME] to complete indicating whether they supported the application or whether they wished to oppose the application. Over 20 [NAME] indicated their support for the application, and there were no responses which opposed the application being granted.

6. The Tribunal was not provided with a copy of the lease for one of the flats and accordingly has not determined that the work carried out/proposed to be carried out is within the scope of the Applicant’s obligations.

7. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] 1 WLR 854, the primary issue when considering dispensation is whether any lessee would suffer any financial prejudice as a result of the lack of compliance with the full consultation process.

8. There is clearly a significant issue which needs to be addressed urgently. The Applicant is proceeding with work set out in the quotations provided by [NAME] in the sum of just under £50,000. It is unfortunate that there has yet to be a final estimate of the likely cost and, therefore, the likely service charges. However, whether such charges are reasonable or payable is a separate issue from that being considered in this decision.

3 9. Given the lack of objection or any proven prejudice, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements.

Name: Judge Daley

Date: 15 October 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 work is considered urgent.
  • There is no evidence of financial prejudice to the lessees.
  • The applicant acts reasonably to avoid financial burden.
  • No objections are raised by the respondents.
  • There is a clear risk of personal injury associated with the work.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that led to a decision against the claimant in the provided cases.)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It allowed the applicant to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent heating and hot water repairs.

Who was involved?

The applicant, a freeholder managing a large estate, and various leaseholders.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the work was urgent and no leaseholders would suffer financial harm.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA, and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the work was urgent and necessary to prevent properties from losing heating and hot water.

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

The decision was in favour of 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 the work is urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgent need for repairs and the potential financial harm to leaseholders if the repairs were delayed.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

Yes, it is always advisable to seek legal 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.