First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Permission for Urgent Drainage Work Due to Rat Infestation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BF/LDC/2026/0025 Property : 20 & 20a [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME]

Respondent : [redacted] schedule attached to the [NAME] : N/A Type of [NAME] :

[NAME] under s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – dispensation from consultation

Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 2 June 2026

DECISION

2 The tribunal’s decision (1) The tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought by the

applicant in respect of the works required, which included a CCTV

inspection and drainage works by [COMPANY] to eradicate a rat

infestation in the sums of £630.00 (including VAT) and £2,220.00

(including VAT).

_____________________________________________________

Background 1. The applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory

consultation requirements in respect of a rat infestation at 20 & 20a

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the property’.)

2. The subject property is a building converted into residential units. The

works were said to be urgent because:

We were made aware by the [NAME] of a rat infestation

affecting the property. Following the report, a CCTV survey of

the drainage system was instructed in order to investigate the

source of the issue.

The CCTV drainage report confirmed that one-way valves were

required to be installed within the drainage system to prevent

rodent access into the building. Upon receipt of the report,

approval was given for the necessary drainage works to proceed

in order to eradicate the rat infestation and resolve the issue

permanently.

Due to the severe bad odour emanating from the drainage

system, the [NAME] was unable to comfortably remain in

occupation of the property and therefore had to temporarily

move out until the drainage works were completed and the flat

had been properly ventilated throughout.

As an interim measure, access points within the [NAME]’s toilet

area were blocked off to prevent further bad odour entering the

property and to restrict access for the [NAME] into the flat.

No objections were received in relation to the proposed drainage

and remedial works. Since completion of the works, no further

reports of rat infestation or related issues have been received.

3. No consultation was carried out with the [NAME].

3 The hearing 4. The applicant confirmed to the tribunal the [NAME] were provided

with a copy of the [NAME] and the tribunal’s Directions. Neither party

requested a hearing and the [NAME] was determined on the papers

provided, which a digital bundle of 91 pages. 5. Although no responses were received by the tribunal from the

[NAME], the applicant provided correspondence from Ms [APPELLANT]

a leaseholder who disputed the urgency of the works and the absence of

interim or temporary measures. In written correspondence to she

applicant stated she required:

1. Evidence supporting the assertion of urgency, including a

surveyor, pest control, environmental health or risk

assessment reports relied upon in concluding that it was

a 'serious rat infestation', that this was 'affecting the

building' and why it was deemed impracticable to

undertake even a truncated or phased consultation

process.

2. A clear timeline setting out: when the rat infestation was

first reported or identified, what investigations or

remedial actions were taken prior to the works referenced

in your email, when the decision was taken that

immediate works were required.

3. An explanation as to why all [NAME] were not made

aware of the upcoming works taking place if it was

'serious' and 'affected the building' and needed to be done

to 'protect [NAME]' health and safety'.

4. Further details regarding the claim that a [NAME] was

required to vacate their property, including whether this

outcome was directly attributable to any delay in

addressing the issue. The [NAME] is still yet to move into

their property therefore these works did not solve their

problem and that claim is unwarranted.

5. An explanation as to why interim or temporary measures

(for example, pest control treatments or limited works)

were not considered sufficient to allow compliance with

the Section 20 consultation requirements.

6. A cost breakdown and justification for the valve

installation (£2,220.00) and the CCTV drain survey

(£630.00), including details of how contractors were

selected, whether alternative quotations were sought and

4

why these particular works were considered necessary

and proportionate at that stage. 6. The applicant responded to this enquiry in an email dated 6 February

2026 and stated that:

…The first report of rat’s infestation/foul smell was received on

27/08/2025. The report confirms that the smell was of dead

[NAME]/mice in the building and the smell is unbearable with the

[NAME] confirming she cannot stay at the property. We

subsequently instructed a [COMPANY] on 28th of

August 2025 to attend the property to investigate the reports

further and a drainage team was instructed on the same day to

undertake a CCTV survey of the drains. I enclose a copy of the

CCTV survey for your files along with a copy of the [COMPANY] report.

Rat infestations pose serious and immediate risks to health,

safety, and property. [NAME] are known carriers of diseases,

contaminate food and living areas with droppings and urine,

and can cause significant damage by gnawing on electrical

wiring, insulation, and structural materials. The longer the

infestation remains untreated, the greater the risk of property

damage, fire hazards, and health-related concerns for

[NAME].

Additionally, rat populations grow rapidly. Delaying treatment

for several months will likely allow the infestation to worsen,

[NAME] eventual remediation more complex, more disruptive,

and more costly than addressing it promptly, therefore it was

decided that we bypass the Section 20 process and we apply to

the First Tier Tribunal to dispense from Section 20 at later date.

Early intervention is critical to prevent escalation and to ensure

the environment remains safe and habitable.

[NAME] were asked on 28th of August 2028 to confirm whether

they were experiencing issues related to the rat infestation.

While only one or two flats formally reported the problem, this

does not negate the seriousness of the situation.

A [NAME] was required to move out due to the severity of the

infestation and the associated health and safety concerns. This

action was taken as a precautionary measure and was not a

factor that prevented or postponed the commencement or

completion of pest control treatment. The infestation issues

existed independently of the [NAME]’s occupancy status and

required professional intervention regardless.

5

Interim or temporary measures were not considered sufficient

to allow compliance with the Section 20 consultation

requirements due to the severity and active nature of the rat

infestation. Furthermore, implementing interim measures

would have required repeated treatments over an extended

period, during which time the risks to [NAME] and the

property would have remained. This would not have been an

appropriate or responsible approach given the urgency of the

situation and the rapid rate at which rat infestations can

escalate. In these circumstances, immediate and comprehensive

treatment was necessary to fully eradicate the infestation and

prevent further harm. Delaying full remedial works in order to

carry out temporary measures solely to meet consultation

timescales would have exposed [NAME] to ongoing risk and

increased the likelihood of more extensive damage.

Due to the urgency of the situation, priority was given to

securing immediate professional intervention from a

[NAME] and a [NAME] who were able to

attend promptly. In these circumstances, it was neither practical

nor responsible to delay necessary works while awaiting

additional quotes.

We are continuing to bait the affected areas for [NAME], and we

believe that the works undertaken to date have helped to

alleviate the problem. 7. The tribunal finds the primary concern of the leaseholder was to need

and cost of the works. However, the tribunal is satisfied the works were

urgently required as a matter of health and safety. The tribunal also finds

the leaseholder has failed to demonstrate that any substantive prejudice

has or will be caused by the grant of dispensation; [COMPANY] v Benson & others [2013] UKSC 14 & [2013] UKSC 54. 8. The cost of the works is not relevant to this [NAME] and the tribunal’s

Directions expressly stated that:

This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any

service charge costs will be reasonable or payable… 9. It is for the respondents, not the tribunal, to demonstrate the

[NAME] will be caused substantial prejudice by the

dispensation from consultation. The reasonableness and payability of

the cost of these works can be challenged by the respond [NAME] in

due course, should they choose to make the appropriate [NAME]. 10. Therefore, the tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought

by the applicant.

6

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 2 June 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 [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta- [NAME]-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper- tribunal-lands-chamber The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] 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