First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Water Tanks Repair
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements to replace water tanks and repair damage caused by leaks. The Tribunal determined the work was necessary and urgent, and there was no harm to the tenants.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are necessary and urgent, and no prejudice to the tenants is shown.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for replacing water tanks and repairing damage.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for replacing water tanks and repairing damage. The Tribunal found the works necessary and urgent, with no prejudice to the tenants.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AU/LDC/2019/0055 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] :
Respondent [NAME] : [NAME] as per the application Representative : - Type of application : To dispense with the consultation requirements under S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member(s) :
[NAME] [NAME] and venue of determination : 28 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
DECISION
2
Decision of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal grants dispensation from all of the consultation requirements under S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to replace the water tanks on the flat roof and repair the consequential damage. (2) The Background 1. The application under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) was made by the agents on behalf of the applicants on 11 April 2019.
2. The application concerned the replacement of two water tanks situated on the flat roof which were leaking and causing damage to the communal roof space and properties below.
3. Directions were issued on 10 April 2019 requiring the applicant to prepare bundles by 30 April to include statements (i) Setting out the full grounds for the application, including all of the documents on which the landlord relies and copies of any replies from the tenants; (ii) The [NAME] were asked to confirm by 23 April whether or not they would give their consent to the application. (iii) In the event that such agreement was not forthcoming the [NAME] were to state why they opposed the application; and provide copies of all documents to be relied upon.
4. No responses were received from the [NAME] of the twenty flats in the block.
5. The [NAME] were informed in the Directions issued by the Tribunal that the question of the reasonableness of the works or cost was not included in this application, the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation. The Evidence 6. On 29 March 2019 [APPELLANT] and [NAME] served Section 20 Notice of Intention to replace the water tanks and roof coverings underneath due to the existing tanks leaking.
7. A report into the condition of the tanks had been obtained from Red 100. One of the tanks is located slightly over the edge of the roof with the main overflow straight out over the main landing walkway. The tanks each hold over 1,000 litres of water. There was evidence of leaking from Tank 2. Inside Tank 2 an
3 attempt had been made to install a makeshift sparge pipe in the tank to create a crossflow of water. The crossflow issue needs rectifying in both tanks. It was not possible to examine the inside of Tank 1. The rooftop pipework requires checking, replaced or repaired where defective and insulated.
8. Red 100 recommended that both tanks be replaced and connected to ensure good cross flow through both tanks. The overflows and warning pipes are to be installed to current regulations to discharge safely. The Decision 9. The relevant test to be applied in an application for dispensation was set out by the Supreme Court in [COMPANY] v [NAME] & Ors [2013] UKSC 14 where it was held that the purpose of the section 20 consultation procedure was to protect tenants from paying for inappropriate works or paying an inappropriate amount. Dispensation should not result in prejudice to the tenant.
10. The Tribunal determines from the evidence before it that the works were necessary, were required to be completed urgently and that no prejudice to the lessees has been demonstrated or asserted.
11. On the evidence before it, and in these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the application for dispensation be granted.
Name: [NAME]: 28 May 2019
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission to Install Fire Safety System Without Tenant Co…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Boiler Replacement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Balcony Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Ground Water Pump Replacement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs in Multi-Story Buildin…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Replacement Works
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 court accepted that the water tanks were leaking and causing damage to the property.
- The court found that the works to replace the tanks were necessary.
- The court found that the works were required to be completed urgently.
- The court found that the tenants did not show any harm from the lack of consultation.
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 consultation requirements for replacing water tanks and repairing damage.
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 works were necessary and urgent, and no prejudice to the tenants was shown.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the works were necessary and urgent, and no prejudice to the tenants was shown.
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 consultation requirements if the works are necessary and urgent, and no prejudice to tenants is shown.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the necessity and urgency of the works, and lack of prejudice to tenants, mattered.
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 get a solicitor for a case like this.
