VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Permission for Urgent Repairs Due to Water Ingress

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord permission to bypass certain consultation requirements for urgent repairs needed due to water leakage into a top-floor flat. The decision was made to prevent further damage and ensure safety for the residents.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and necessary to prevent significant damage.

Topics

tenancy disputeswater ingress repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

Under this section, a tribunal can grant permission to skip consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so.

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 water ingress.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent remedial works due to water ingress into the affected top floor flat. The Tribunal found it reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements given the urgency and potential for significant damage.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AJ/LDC/2025/0795 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] – [COUNSEL] Respondents : [redacted] [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Type of [NAME] : Dispensation of consultation requirements under s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tonya Richards-Clarke Venue : Remote Paper hearing Date of decision : 20 October 2025

DECISION

Decision of the tribunal

2 The Tribunal grants the [NAME] for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ("the Act") in relation to remedial works to remedy the water ingress into the affected top floor flat at the property. The [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.20ZA of the Act for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Act. The [NAME] was dated 09 July 2025.

2. Directions of the Tribunal were issued on 26 August 2025.

3. The case was listed for a paper determination. Neither party requested an oral hearing. The hearing 4. The matter was determined by way of a paper hearing which took place on 20 October 2025. The background 5. The property which is the subject of this [NAME] is a detached building with eight flats over 5 stories at [ADDRESS]. The [NAME]

6. The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of qualifying works of severe water ingress into the affected top floor flat. This has been caused by a failed area of waterproofing to the box guttering on the front elevation, along with insufficient fall of the gutter towards the outlet. This applicant seeks to mitigate further damage and a risk that further leaks could cause significant damage to the affected flat and other flats at the premises together with a danger to occupants of the affected flat, should water enter the electric circuits. This is why the [NAME] is said to be urgent.

7. The insurers are unable to contribute to the remedial works under the Latent Defects Policy. This is because the cost of the remedial works is less than the policy excess and the policy does not cover above-ground drainage (like box) gutters.

8. There applicant has obtained two quotes in the sum of £6250.00 and £5250.00 each plus VAT respectively.

3 9. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [NAME] did not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

10. No notice was received from any of the Respondents opposing the [NAME]. The decision of the Tribunal 11. s.20 of the Act provides for the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutory consultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250 can be recovered from a tenant in respect of such works unless the consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed with.

12. Dispensation is dealt with by s.20ZA of the Act which provides: - "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"

13. Taking into account that there have been no objections to this [NAME] from the Respondents, the Tribunal could not find prejudice to any of the leaseholders of the property by the granting of dispensation relating to the urgent works to prevent water ingress into the affected top floor flat.

14. As a result, the Tribunal believes that it is reasonable to allow dispensation in relation to the subject matter of the [NAME].

15.

Accordingly, the Tribunal grants the Applicant’s [NAME] for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to urgent remedial works to prevent water ingress into the affected top floor flat in the property. The Tribunal is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of this case, involving risks to the occupant(s) of the affected top floor flat and/or of further damage to this and other flats at the property, it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements.

16. The Tribunal's determination is limited to this [NAME] for dispensation of consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Act

Name: [NAME]: 20 October 2025

4

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).

📊 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 works are urgent and necessary to prevent significant damage.

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 the consultation requirements for urgent repairs due to water leakage.

Who was involved?

The landlord and tenants of various flats were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation because the works were urgent and necessary to prevent significant damage.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency and necessity of the repairs to prevent significant damage.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to bypass consultation requirements if their repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Quotes for the repair work and the urgency of the situation were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

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.