First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Water Pump Replacement Without Leaseholder Consultation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/26UD/LDC/2025/0696 Property : 1-25 [NAME], Station Approach, Ware, Hertfordshire, [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] Property Type of [NAME] : For dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :

Judge Bernadette MacQueen and Judge Elizabeth Gibson

Date of decision : 7 April 2026

DECISION

Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal determines that it is reasonable for the Applicant to dispense with the consultation requirements in relation to the works for the reasons set out in this decision.

2 Introduction 1. The Applicant is the management company appointed by [APPELLANT], the Landlord of the Property, and the Respondents are the [NAME].

2. The Applicant sought an order pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) for dispensation of the consultation requirements in respect of emergency works to supply and install replacement water pumps in the Property.

3. The Tribunal made directions for the Applicant to send their [NAME] to the Respondents, and for the Respondents who oppose the [NAME] to make representations. Further, the directions required the Applicant to prepare a bundle of documents for the Tribunal to use when determining the [NAME]. The Tribunal has received a bundle totalling 53 pages (the Bundle). This included the [NAME], the directions, correspondence sent to [NAME] explaining the nature of the works, a specimen Lease and an invoice from [COMPANY] in the sum of £7,015.20 (“the Invoice”). The Work 4. The Applicant submitted that both of the pumps that supply water to the individual flats within the Property failed and a [NAME] was therefore instructed to attend. They advised that a repair could not be carried out and that instead, new pumps were required. In the meantime, one of the pumps was “hot-wired” in order to restore the water supply to the Property.

5. [COMPANY] were instructed to supply, install and programme 2 Hydrovar 2.2kW 3-phase 415V pump inverter drives. The

3 work was competed on 29th September 2025 and on 30th September 2025 the Invoice was raised. The cost of this work was above £250 per [NAME], meaning that consultation with [NAME] was required (section 20 of the Act).

6. The Applicant stated that the work needed to be completed urgently as the [NAME] would otherwise be without a water supply should the temporary repair fail, which was considered to be a health and safety issue. The decision was therefore taken by the Applicant to instruct the works to be carried out immediately. Consultation 7. For the reasons set out in paragraph 6 above, no consultation with the [NAME] was carried out. Section 20ZA [NAME]

8. By email dated 24 February 2026 (a copy of which was at pages 29 and 29a of the Bundle), the Applicant sent to the [NAME] a copy of the [NAME] made to this Tribunal, a copy of the Tribunal’s directions and a copy of the Invoice. This included notifying [NAME] of the process to be followed if they wished to make objections. The email advised that its contents and attachments would also be sent by first class post on the same day.

9. None of the Respondents have objected to the [NAME].

Relevant Law

10. This is set out in the appendix attached to this Decision. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

4

Decision

11. The Tribunal’s determination took place without parties attending a hearing, in accordance with the Tribunal’s Directions. This meant that this [NAME] was determined solely on the basis of the documentary evidence filed by the Applicant. As stated earlier, no objections have been received from any of the Respondents nor have they filed any evidence.

12. The relevant test to be applied is set out in the Supreme Court decision in [COMPANY] v [NAME] & Ors [2013] UKSC 14 where it was held that the purpose of the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Act was to ensure that tenants were protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than was appropriate. In other words, a tenant should suffer no financial prejudice in this way.

13. The issue before the Tribunal was whether dispensation should be granted in relation to the requirement to carry out statutory consultation with the [NAME] regarding the overall works. As stated in the Directions order, the Tribunal was not concerned about the actual cost that has been incurred.

14. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondents have been properly notified of this [NAME] and have not made any objections.

15. Accordingly, the Tribunal grants the [NAME] for the following reasons:

(a) The Tribunal is satisfied that it was necessary for the works to be completed on an urgent basis. In particular, the Tribunal notes that without the works taking place, the [NAME] would potentially be without a water supply at all, which would constitute a significant health and safety issue and on the balance of probabilities would cause greater prejudice than the statutory

5 consultation requirements being dispensed with.

(b) The Tribunal further notes that the Applicant has sought to minimise any financial prejudice to the Respondents in using the reserve fund to cover the cost of the works and not seeking further contributions from the Respondents.

(c) The Tribunal is also satisfied that if the Applicant carried out statutory consultation, it is likely that there would be significant delay, increasing the risk of the temporary repair to one of the failed pumps failing.

(d) The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondents were informed of the need, scope and incurred cost of the proposed works.

(e) The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondents have been served with the [NAME] and the evidence in support and there has been no objection from any of them.

(f) Importantly, the real prejudice to the Respondents would be in the cost of the work and they have the statutory protection of section 19 of the Act, which preserves their right to challenge the actual costs incurred by [NAME] a separate service charge [NAME] under section 27A of the Act.

16. The Tribunal, therefore, determines that the Respondents are not prejudiced by the Applicant’s failure to consult and the [NAME] for dispensation is granted.

17. It should be noted that in granting this [NAME], the Tribunal makes no finding as to whether or not the scope and cost of the work is reasonable.

Name: Judge Elizabeth Gibson

6 Date: 21 April 2026

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

7 Appendix of relevant legislation Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 20 (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate tribunal . (2) In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount, which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement. (3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount. (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and

8 (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount. (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.

Section 20ZA

(1) Where an [NAME] 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.