AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·08 October 2025

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Sump Pump Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for repairing a critical sump pump. This was done to avoid potential major damage to the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant may be granted dispensation from statutory consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the work is deemed urgent and necessary to prevent significant damage.

Topics

statutory consultation requirementsurgent repairsdispensation

Provisions

section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant an exemption from consultation requirements related to certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for urgent repairs to a sump pump.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for urgent repairs to a sump pump serving a multi-unit property. The decision was made to prevent significant damage due to the failure of the remaining pump.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :

LON/00AY/LDC/2025/0745

Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondents : [redacted] Property : 72 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tribunal : Judge Adrian Jack Date of decision : 24th September 2025

DECISION ON THE PAPERS

1. The Applicant on 28th May 2025 applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of repair to one of two sump pumps serving the property. The estimated cost of the works is up to £1,404 including VAT.

2. The application is said to be urgent because should the remaining pump fail, it would cause soiled water to back up causing serious damage 3. The only issue for the tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Accordingly the Tribunal makes no determination as to whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable, or the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022.

4. The Tribunal gave directions on 24th June 2025 which provided for tenants to state their case in opposition to the application. No tenant has in the event objected to the making of an order dispensing with consultation.

2 5. In my judgment this is a quintessential case for the grant of dispensation. The work to the sump pump is urgent. Delaying repairs so as to allow time for carrying out a statutory consultation would be prejudicial to the tenants. DETERMINATION The Tribunal pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 dispenses with the requirement to carry out a consultation under section 20 of the said Act in respect of the works the subject of this application.

Name: Judge Adrian Jack

Date: 24th September 2025

Schedule of Respondents

[NAME] 1

Mr [NAME] 2

[NAME] 3

Ms [NAME] 4

[NAME] 5

Ms [NAME] 6

Mr [NAME] 7

📊 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 work is deemed urgent.
The work is necessary to prevent significant damage.
It is reasonable to grant dispensation.
There is no substantial prejudice to leaseholders.
Cost-effectiveness of the works.

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 statutory consultation requirements for urgent repairs to a sump pump.

Who was involved?

The landlord and tenants of a multi-unit property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the work was urgent and necessary to prevent significant damage.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The urgency of the repairs and the potential for significant damage if the remaining pump failed was the central reasoning.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.

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 they can demonstrate the urgency and necessity of the repairs.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence of the urgency and potential for significant damage was likely crucial.

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

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.