First-tier Tribunal Grants Exemption for Urgent Heating Works
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements after determining that replacing a communal heating boiler was urgent and reasonable.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be exempted from consultation requirements if the works are deemed urgent and reasonable.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant an exemption from consultation requirements for landlords if it finds that dispensing with these requirements is reasonable.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent works to replace a communal heating boiler.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord's request to dispense with consultation requirements for urgent works to replace a communal heating boiler, finding the work necessary and reasonable.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2018/0196 Property : 142 -148 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : [RESPONDENT] (Managing Agents) Respondents :
[redacted] 148 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Representative : No appearance Type of Application : Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – To dispense with consultation requirements of Section 20 Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME] and venue of Hearing : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 18th February 2019
DECISION
2
Decisions of the Tribunal (1) The Tribunal determines that all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to replacement of the communal heating boiler notified in the Section 20 Notice dated 8th November 2018 shall be dispensed with. (2) The Tribunal makes the other determinations as set out under the various headings in this decision. The application 1. By an application dated 7th December 2018, the Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (an extract of which is noted in Appendix 1 below) relating to urgent works to replace the communal heating boiler at the subject property which has broken down and is beyond repair. The property is a block of 15 flats built in about 1955.
2. Further to the Tribunal’s Directions dated 10th December 2018, the Landlord served notice of this application upon all leaseholders in the block.
3. The Applicant’s statement in support of the application disclosed that in early October 2018 problems were discovered with the heating system. Despite several engineer’s visits, the boiler eventually failed. An engineer’s report dated 29th October 2018 recommended that a new boiler be installed, as the old one was beyond repair. The Applicant provided electric heaters to residents, some of whom are elderly. The Applicant obtained two quotations for replacement of the boiler, one for £9,676.84, and the other for £7,630. The Landlord served a Notice of Intention to do the works under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, dated 8th November 2018, and on the same day gave notice that it intended to accept the lowest quotation, and proceed without further notice, giving the reasons for urgency. It also gave notice that it intended to make this application. The work was completed on or before 26th November 2018.
4. This application was then made on 7th December 2018. The Tribunal’s Directions dated 10th December 2018 required the Applicant to give notice of this application to all leaseholders, with copies of the application and Directions attached. Leaseholders had until 7th January 2019 to notify any objection. Only the leaseholder of Flat 7 (Mr [NAME]) returned a completed notice of intention to object. However, no statement of reasons was ever received from him, despite reminders from the Applicant’s agent.
3 Determination 5. The Tribunal determined this matter on the papers as no party had requested an oral hearing.
6. The Tribunal noted that essentially its function under Section 20ZA was to decide if the work was urgent, and if it was reasonable to grant dispensation from the full consultation requirements of Section 20. It could not decide upon matters relating to cost and payability pursuant Section 27A of the 1985 Act. Any party is free to make an application under Section 27A.
7. The Tribunal considered the evidence and submissions. It was satisfied from the evidence that reasonable steps had been taken to notify the Respondents of the problem, and the Applicant’s reasons for carrying out the work urgently. In view of the likely discomfort and dangers to the health of residents, the Tribunal decided to grant the order for dispensation from the requirements for statutory consultation under Section 20ZA, as asked.
Tribunal Judge: Lancelot Robson Dated; 18th February 2019
Appendix 1
Landlord & Tenant Act 1985
Section 20ZA Consultation requirements: supplementary
(1) 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 qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.
-------------------------------------
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Exemption for Urgent Works Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Bypass Consultation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Proceed Without Tenant Consultation Due to Urgency
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Exemption for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Exemption Granted for Urgent Works Due to Rising Damp
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Specific Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Bypass Consultation Requirements for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Bypass of Consultation Requirements for Urgent R…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freeholder Granted Exemption for Urgent Chimney Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Repairs Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Works Dispensation
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 works are considered urgent and necessary.
- The works are deemed urgent and reasonable.
- The works are necessary to address an immediate problem.
- The works are necessary to prevent further damage.
- Compliance with consultation requirements would be impractical for safety reasons.
❌ 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 landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent works to replace a communal heating boiler.
Who was involved?
The landlord requested permission to bypass consultation requirements, while the leaseholders were represented but did not appear in court.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the landlord's request because the work was deemed urgent and reasonable.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the work was urgent and reasonable was crucial to the decision.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of 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 their works are deemed urgent and reasonable.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence such as engineer reports and the breakdown of the boiler were important.
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 advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal rights and obligations.
