AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·14 July 2022

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs to Foul Pumps

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a management company to bypass certain consultation requirements because of urgent repairs needed for faulty pumps in a residential building. The pumps were failing and could cause flooding, posing significant health and safety risks.

⚖️ Legal holding

It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements where urgent repairs are necessary.

Topics

statutory consultation requirementsurgent repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant permission to skip consultation requirements for certain 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 due to urgent repairs needed.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to foul pumps in a residential property. The Tribunal found it reasonable to dispense with the requirements given the health and safety risks involved.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AK/LDC/2021/0282 Property :

1-10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] :

Respondents : [redacted] application Representative :

Type of application : For the dispensation of some of the consultation requirements under s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members :

Judge Simon Brilliant

Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 28 June 2022

DECISION

2 Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal determines that those parts of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ("the Act") which have not been complied with are to be dispensed with. This has been a hearing on the papers which has been not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and all issues could be determined on paper. The critical documents that I was referred to are in the Applicant’s bundles. The order made is described at the end of these reasons. The application 1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.20ZA of the Act for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Act. The application was dated 01 November 2021.

2. Directions of the Tribunal were issued on 04 May 2022.

3. The case was listed for a paper determination. No request had been made by any of the parties for an oral hearing. The hearing 4. The matter was determined by way of a paper hearing which took place on 28 June 2022. The background 5. 1-10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] is a purpose-built residential block of 10 flats. The application 6. The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of both foul pumps. There was found to be heavy sludge in the system. When the sump was cleaned it was found that the float cables were damaged. Both pumps failed an electrical test. The pumps need to be replaced. The directors of the Applicant were keen for the works to begin before any further damage could be done to the building.

7. There were also health and safety concerns about the foul waste backing up. This would occur soon as the pumps would not last much longer. The waste water specialists who were called to examine the pumps advised that the works needed to be done urgently as there could be flooding soon.

8. No objections to the application were received from any of the Respondents. There is no evidence of any prejudice suffered by them as a result of there having been no statutory consultation.

9. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statuto1y consultation requirements. This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

3 Decision of the tribunal 10. s.20 of the Act provides for the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutory consultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250 can be recovered from a tenant in respect of such works unless the consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed with.

11. Dispensation is dealt with by s.20ZA of the Act which provides:- "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"

12. The Tribunal is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of this case, involving the necessary replacement of the pumps, it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of these works.

13. The Tribunal's determination is limited to this application for dispensation of consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Act.

Name:

[NAME]: 28 June 2022

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

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 need for urgent repairs justifies dispensing with statutory consultation requirements.
Urgent health and safety concerns allow bypassing statutory consultation requirements.
Cases involving urgent repairs often allow skipping statutory consultations.

❌ Tends to be rejected

(No factors identified that went 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?

The decision allowed the management company to bypass certain consultation requirements for urgent repairs to faulty pumps.

Who was involved?

The case involved a management company and leaseholders of a residential property.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation from consultation requirements because the repairs were deemed urgent and necessary to prevent health and safety risks.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically sections 20 and 20ZA, were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency and necessity of the repairs to prevent potential flooding and health hazards.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the management company.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be able to bypass certain consultation requirements if they can demonstrate that the repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the faulty pumps, potential health and safety risks, and the urgency of the repairs were critical.

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?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property management and repairs.

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.