First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Urgent Water Works

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case reference : CAM/00kc/LDC/2025/0665

HMCTS code : P:PAPERREMOTE

Properties : Apartments 1 to 504, [APPELLANT], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Tribunal members : Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] of Determination : 24 January 2026

DECISION

This has been a determination on the papers which the parties are taken to have consented to, as explained below. The form of determination was a paper hearing described above as P:PAPERREMOTE. A hearing was not held, and all issues were determined on the papers. The Applicant submitted a bundle. The Tribunal has noted the contents and the decision is below.

Decision

The Tribunal grants the application for retrospective dispensation from further statutory consultation in respect of the works as described below.

The Applicant shall be responsible for serving a copy of this Decision on all of [NAME].

In granting dispensation, the Tribunal makes no determination as

to whether any service charge costs are reasonable or payable (section 27A of the Act). The Tribunal also makes no determination in respect of the liability for the cost of the works.

Reasons

Background

1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the “Act”) for retrospective dispensation from the statutory requirement to consult in respect of qualifying works.

2. The Application was completed by Mr [NAME] on 20 August 2025. This Decision therefore relates to that Application.

3. Directions were issued on 24 September 2025.

4. No representations have been received by the Tribunal from any of [NAME].

5. Before making this determination, the papers received by the Tribunal were examined to determine whether the issues remained capable of determination without an oral hearing and it was decided that they were, given the lack of any challenge.

6. The only issue for determination is whether it is reasonable for the Tribunal to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements.

7. The Tribunal has not considered whether the service charge costs will be reasonable or payable, nor by whom they will be payable.

The Law

8. Section 20 ZA (1) of the Act states:

“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 any qualifying works or qualifying [RESPONDENT] term agreement, the Tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.”

9. In having regard to the question of reasonableness, the Tribunal has considered the extent to which [NAME] would be prejudiced in dispensing of the requirements.

10. The Supreme Court provided guidance to the Tribunal in the application of section 20 AA (1) of the Act in case of [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14 (the “Daejan case”). The principles can be summarised as follows:

1. The main question for the Tribunal when considering how to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with section 20ZA is whether there is real prejudice to the tenants flowing from the landlord’s breach of the consultation requirements.

2. The financial consequence to the landlord of not granting a dispensation is not a relevant factor. The nature of the landlord is not a relevant factor.

3. Dispensation should not be refused solely because the landlord seriously breached, or departed from, the consultation requirements.

4. The Tribunal has power to grant a dispensation as it thinks fit, provided that any terms are appropriate.

5. The Tribunal has power to impose a condition that the landlord pays the tenants’ reasonable costs (including surveyor and/or legal fees) incurred in connection with the landlord’s application under section 20ZA (1).

6. The legal burden of proof in relation to dispensation applications is on the landlord. The factual burden of identifying any “relevant” prejudice that they would or might have suffered is on the tenants.

7. The court considered that “relevant” prejudice should be given a narrow definition; it means whether noncompliance with the consultation requirements has led the landlord to incur costs in an unreasonable amount or to incur them in the provision of services, or in the carrying out of works, which fell below a reasonable standard, in other words whether the non-compliance has in that sense caused prejudice to the tenant.

8. The more serious and/or deliberate the landlord's failure, the more readily a Tribunal would be likely to accept that the tenants had suffered prejudice.

9. Once the tenants had shown a credible case for prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it.

11. The Tribunal has therefore applied the statutory provisions in accordance with the approach taken in the [APPELLANT] case.

Representations – The Applicant

12. The Applicant’s description of the Properties to which their application relates is as follows:

[The Property is] “…a former office block build originally circa 1960’s using class “O” non-combustible materials such as concrete, brick and breeze block materials and converted circa 2019/202 with skimmed plasterboard on metal stud work ceilings and walls on the internal wall linings of the access and escape routes. The external of the property offers a flat roof and an exposed brick and cladding panelled façade. The height of the building is approximately 15m (calculated at 3m per floor from the lowest point of the ground floor to the floor slab of the top habitable level as per PAS 9980-2022 Section 3.1.22) This measurement is an approximation and not a defined height of the building.”

13. The Applicant’s description of the qualifying works is:

“This application concerns the qualifying works required in response to the loss of water supply at [APPELLANT], caused by low mains pressure… … [The necessary works comprise the] Installation of a 1,000-litre plastic cold-water break tank and twin pump system to supply the two roof-level storage tanks. Installation will be located in the bike store and the removal of cycle racks will likely be required. The estimated costs of these works is £16,456.80 including VAT, which exceeds the Section 20 consultation threshold… …Due to the urgency of these works we have instructed [NAME], the engineers, to install the booster site, we anticipate that the installation will be completed by the end of the weekend (24th of August 2025).”

14. The Applicant confirmed that:

“The stage one section 20 process is to be served by 1st class post to all 41 leases at [APPELLANT], dated 18th August 2025 and with due consideration to postal delivery service the expiry date for initial observation is the 22nd of September 2025.”

15. The Applicant explained that they seek dispensation as:

“The Courts determination for dispensation in these circumstances, is respectfully requested to negate the requirement to carry out stages two and three of the Section 20 consultation process. This request is predicated on the urgency of addressing the issue posed by the low pressure resulting in intermittent water supply, as the proposed works are deemed essential to mitigate the risks associated with delaying their remediation.”

[NAME]

16. The Tribunal has not received any objections.

Determination

17. As set out above, the Tribunal may grant dispensation “…if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”.

18. In making its decision the Tribunal has regard to the extent to which any real prejudice has arisen to [NAME] as a result of the Applicant breaching the consultation requirements.

19. No objections or representations have been received by the Tribunal from [NAME]. In this regard, [NAME] have received the Tribunal Directions and are therefore considered to have been given ample opportunity to submit representations should they have so wished.

20. The Tribunal therefore considers that it has not seen any evidence of prejudice arising to [NAME]. Furthermore, it is apparent from the submissions that the required works were necessary and further delay in their implementation would have been prejudicial to the continued safety of the Leaseholders.

21. The Tribunal consequently grants dispensation from the remaining consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

22. In granting dispensation, the Tribunal makes no determination in respect as to whether any of the resultant service charge costs are reasonable or payable.

23. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements as set out under the section headed “Decision” above.

Name: [NAME] [NAME]: 24 January 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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

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.

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.

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.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).