VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Urgent Hot Water Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

A landlord was allowed to bypass certain legal consultation steps when fixing an urgent hot water problem in a building. The First-tier Tribunal found it reasonable and fair given the circumstances.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain retrospective dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements if it is reasonable and no prejudice arises to a person.

Topics

tenancylandlord and tenant actservice charges

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZAService Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant a landlord permission to bypass the consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so and there is no harm to any party involved.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent remedial works due to hot water system failure.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements of s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent remedial works to restore hot water services due to a heater interface unit failure, finding no prejudice to leaseholders.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2023/0057 HMCTS Code : P:PAPERREMOTE Property : 104 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] London Borough of Lambeth Representative : [COUNSEL], [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] Type of application : An application for dispensation from the consultation requirements of s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge D [NAME] determination : 17th July 2023

DECISION

2 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face-to- face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and no-one requested the same and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents that I was referred to are in an electronic bundle prepared by the applicant containing 68 pages. References in this decision are to page numbers in square brackets. The order made is described at the end of these reasons. Decision

1. The Tribunal grants the Applicant retrospective dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of remedial works to the hot water system servicing the flats at 104 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] ("The building").

Background to the Application

2. The Tribunal did not inspect the building as it considered the documentation and information before it in the appeal bundle enabled the Tribunal to proceed with this determination.

3. This has been a paper hearing which has not been objected to by the parties. The Tribunal had before it an electronic bundle prepared by the applicant in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions issued on 21st April 2023.

4. The applicant landlord seeks retrospective dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by section 20 of the 1985 Act in respect of remedial works to one of the building’s heater interface units which failed leaving residents with little or no hot water. The applicant was made aware of this problem on 23/11/2022 and their long-term contractor, [COMPANY] (“the contractor”) was instructed on the same day to attend the site and carry out a survey.

5. The contractor provided a quotation for works on the same day to remove the defective unit, fit a new Caleffi domestic hot water Heat Interface Unit, alter and lag pipework, remove all waste and leave in working order. The price quoted for these works was £3,091.30.

6. The applicant produced a ‘justification report’ on 25/11/2022 explaining that it was not practicable to carry out a temporary fix to allow for full consultation because the internals of the heat interface unit had failed and were beyond economic repair. Further, the loss of hot water during the winter period posed safeguarding issues to the

3 residents and it found that it was imperative to restore the provision of hot water as soon as possible.

7. The applicant wrote to the [NAME] to inform them why the works were required, what the estimated contribution would be and that an application for retrospective dispensation was being made. The applicant also provided a FAQ sheet.

8. The works were said to be urgent because the lack of hot water to the flats during the winter months.

9. The building is a four-storey converted property containing 5 mixed tenure flats. The [NAME]’ case 10. No objections to this application have been received by the Tribunal.

Reasons for Decision

11. The only issue for the Tribunal to decide is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application does not concern the issue of whether or not service charges will be reasonable or payable.

12. Having read the evidence and submissions from the applicant and noted that there have been no objections to this application, the Tribunal determines the dispensation issues as follows.

13. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 require a landlord planning to undertake major works, where a leaseholder will be required to contribute over £250 towards those works, to consult the [NAME] in a specified form.

14. Should a landlord not comply with the correct consultation procedure, it is possible to obtain dispensation from compliance with these requirements by such an application as is this one before the Tribunal. Essentially the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.

15. The leading authority in relation to s.20ZA dispensation requests is [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] 1 WLR 854 (“Benson”) in which the Supreme Court set out guidance as to the approach to be taken by a tribunal when considering such applications. This was to focus on the extent, if any, to which the lessees were prejudiced in either paying for inappropriate works or paying more than would be appropriate, because of the failure of the landlord to comply with the

4 consultation requirements. In his judgment, Lord [NAME] said as follows;

44. Given that the purpose of the Requirements is to ensure that the tenants are protected from (i) paying for inappropriate works or (ii) paying more than would be appropriate, it seems to me that the issue on which the LVT should focus when entertaining an application by a landlord under section 20ZA(1) must be the extent, if any, to which the tenants were prejudiced in either respect by the failure of the landlord to comply with the Requirements.

45. Thus, in a case where it was common ground that the extent, quality and cost of the works were in no way affected by the landlord’s failure to comply with the Requirements, I find it hard to see why the dispensation should not be granted (at least in the absence of some very good reason): in such a case the tenants would be in precisely the position that the legislation intended them to be – ie as if the Requirements had been complied with.

16.

Accordingly, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was any prejudice that may have arisen out of the conduct of the applicant and whether it was reasonable for the Tribunal to grant dispensation following the guidance set out above.

17. The Tribunal is of the view that, taking into account that no objection has been received from any of the [NAME], it could not find prejudice to them by the granting of dispensation relating to the remedial works to restore hot water services to the building, as set out in the application.

18. As stated above, the only issue for the Tribunal to decide is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application does not concern the issue of whether or not service charges will be reasonable or payable.

19. The Tribunal grants the applicant retrospective dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of remedial works to restore hot water to flats 104[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] ("The building").

20. The Tribunal makes the following condition of such dispensation:

(a) The Applicant shall be responsible for formally serving a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on all [NAME] of the flats.

5

Judge D [NAME] 17th July 2023

APPENDIX 1 RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

3. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The application 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 making the application is seeking.

6

APPENDIX 2 RELEVANT LEGISLATION

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

20ZA. Consultation requirements: supplementary (1) Where an application is made to the appropriate 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.

Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003. Part 2 - consultation requirements for qualifying works for which public notice is not required Notice of intention 1. (1) The landlord shall give notice in writing of his intention to carry out qualifying works— (a) to each tenant; and (b) where a recognised tenants' association represents some or all of the tenants, to the association. (2) The notice shall— (a) describe, in general terms, the works proposed to be carried out or specify the place and hours at which a description of the proposed works may be inspected; (b) state the landlord’s reasons for considering it necessary to carry out the proposed works; (c) invite the making, in writing, of observations in relation to the proposed works; and (d) specify—

7 (i) the address to which such observations may be sent; (ii) that they must be delivered within the relevant period; and (iii) the date on which the relevant period ends. (3) The notice shall also invite each tenant and the association (if any) to propose, within the relevant period, the name of a person from whom the landlord should try to obtain an estimate for the carrying out of the proposed works.

Inspection of description of proposed works 2. (1) Where a notice under paragraph 1 specifies a place and hours for inspection— (a) the place and hours so specified must be reasonable; and (b) a description of the proposed works must be available for inspection, free of charge, at that place and during those hours. (2) If facilities to enable copies to be taken are not made available at the times at which the description may be inspected, the landlord shall provide to any tenant, on request and free of charge, a copy of the description. Duty to have regard to observations in relation to proposed works 3. Where, within the relevant period, observations are made, in relation to the proposed works by any tenant or recognised tenants' association, the landlord shall have regard to those observations.

Estimates and response to observations 4. (1) Where, within the relevant period, a nomination is made by a recognised tenants' association (whether or not a nomination is made by any tenant), the landlord shall try to obtain an estimate from the [NAME].

(2) Where, within the relevant period, a nomination is made by only one of the tenants (whether or not a nomination is made by a

8 recognised tenants' association), the landlord shall try to obtain an estimate from the [NAME].

(3) Where, within the relevant period, a single nomination is made by more than one tenant (whether or not a nomination is made by a recognised tenants' association), the landlord shall try to obtain an estimate— (a) from the person who received the most nominations; or (b) if there is no such person, but two (or more) persons received the same number of nominations, being a number in excess of the nominations received by any other person, from one of those two (or more) persons; or (c) in any other case, from any [NAME].

(4) Where, within the relevant period, more than one nomination is made by any tenant and more than one nomination is made by a recognised tenants' association, the landlord shall try to obtain an estimate— (a) from at least one person [NAME] by a tenant; and (b) from at least one person [NAME] by the association, other than a person from whom an estimate is sought as mentioned in paragraph (a). (5) The landlord shall, in accordance with this sub-paragraph and sub-paragraphs (6) to (9)— (a) obtain estimates for the carrying out of the proposed works; (b) supply, free of charge, a statement (“the paragraph (b) statement”) setting out— (i) as regards at least two of the estimates, the amount specified in the estimate as the estimated cost of the proposed works; and (ii) where the landlord has received observations to which (in accordance with paragraph 3) he is required to have regard, a summary of the observations and his response to them; and

9 (c) make all of the estimates available for inspection. (6) At least one of the estimates must be that of a person wholly unconnected with the landlord. (7) For the purpose of paragraph (6), it shall be assumed that there is a connection between a person and the landlord— (a) where the landlord is a company, if the person is, or is to be, a director or manager of the company or is a close relative of any such director or manager; (b) where the landlord is a company, and the person is a partner in a [NAME], if any partner in that [NAME] is, or is to be, a director or manager of the company or is a close relative of any such director or manager; (c) where both the landlord and the person are companies, if any director or manager of one company is, or is to be, a director or manager of the other company; (d) where the person is a company, if the landlord is a director or manager of the company or is a close relative of any such director or manager; or (e) where the person is a company and the landlord is a partner in a [NAME], if any partner in that [NAME] is a director or manager of the company or is a close relative of any such director or manager. (8) Where the landlord has obtained an estimate from a [NAME], that estimate must be one of those to which the paragraph (b) statement relates. (9) The paragraph (b) statement shall be supplied to, and the estimates made available for inspection by— (a) each tenant; and (b) the secretary of the recognised tenants' association (if any). (10) The landlord shall, by notice in writing to each tenant and the association (if any)—

10 (a) specify the place and hours at which the estimates may be inspected; (b) invite the making, in writing, of observations in relation to those estimates; (c) specify— (i) the address to which such observations may be sent; (ii) that they must be delivered within the relevant period; and (iii) the date on which the relevant period ends.

(11) Paragraph 2 shall apply to estimates made available for inspection under this paragraph as it applies to a description of proposed works made available for inspection under that paragraph.

Duty to have regard to observations in relation to estimates 5. Where, within the relevant period, observations are made in relation to the estimates by a recognised tenants' association or, as the case may be, any tenant, the landlord shall have regard to those observations. Duty on entering into contract 6. (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), where the landlord enters into a contract for the carrying out of qualifying works, he shall, within 21 days of entering into the contract, by notice in writing to each tenant and the recognised tenants' association (if any)— (a) state his reasons for awarding the contract or specify the place and hours at which a statement of those reasons may be inspected; and (b) there he received observations to which (in accordance with paragraph 5) he was required to have regard, summarise the observations and set out his response to them.

11

(2) The requirements of sub-paragraph (1) do not apply where the person with whom the contract is made is a [NAME] or submitted the lowest estimate.

(3) Paragraph 2 shall apply to a statement made available for inspection under this paragraph as it applies to a description of proposed works made available for inspection under that paragraph.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

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 landlord obtained retrospective dispensation because it was reasonable.
  • No prejudice arose to the leaseholders.
  • The works were deemed urgent and necessary.
  • The works were urgent and necessary for health and safety reasons.
  • There were no objections from the leaseholders.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision granted dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for urgent remedial works to restore hot water services.

Who was involved?

A landlord applied for dispensation, and leaseholders were notified but did not object.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal decided that it was reasonable to grant dispensation as no prejudice would arise from bypassing consultation requirements due to urgent circumstances.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA and Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The landlord argued that it was not practicable to carry out a temporary fix or full consultation due to safeguarding issues for residents during winter months.

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

For the landlord, allowing them to proceed with urgent repairs without full consultation.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing an urgent repair issue can apply for dispensation if they demonstrate that it is reasonable and no prejudice will arise.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The justification report, contractor's quotation, and leaseholders' lack of objection were key pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an application for permission to appeal must be made within 28 days if the party wishes to challenge the decision.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for guidance on such matters.

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.