VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to carry out urgent drainage works without consulting tenants, as the works were necessary to prevent basement flooding and were considered reasonable.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be granted dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are deemed urgent and reasonable.

Topics

tenancy disputesurgent repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works if it determines that it is 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 drainage works to prevent basement flooding.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for drainage works to prevent basement flooding, deeming the works urgent and reasonable under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference :

LON/00BC/LDC/2022/0227

Property :

686-688 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] :

[APPELLANT]

Respondents : [redacted] Representative : None Type of Application : Dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”)

Tribunal Member :

Mr [NAME] [NAME] JP

Date of Decision : 2 October 2023

DECISION

2

Decision

1. The application for dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of drainage works to prevent basement flooding is GRANTED unconditionally.

Reasons

The Applicant’s Case

2. Application to the Tribunal was made on 11 November 2023 for a dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) (set out in the appendix). The subject matter was drainage work, including investigations, to prevent flooding of the basement flat following heavy rain. This was described as urgent as it was resulting in insurance claims that were leading to increased premiums. The invoiced costs were £6,420 including VAT from [COMPANY] dated 28 November 2022. There were also related invoices from [COMPANY] dated 26 August 2022 for £293.26, [COMPANY] dated 6 October 2022 for £207 and [COMPANY] for £444 dated 30.09.2022. The work was said to have been completed.

3. Directions were issued on 2 August 2023 that the matter be dealt with by written representations unless any party made a request for an oral hearing, which none did. The directions required publicity to be given to the application in the block. This was confirmed to the Tribunal. In addition, the respondents were invited to respond to the application.

The Property

4. The property consists of a late Victorian House built around 1880 and constructed over basement, ground and two upper floors. It has been converted into flats. The Tribunal did not inspect the property.

The Leases

5. A sample lease was supplied, but the Tribunal makes no finding as to payability or reasonableness of the costs to be incurred as that is outside the scope of this application.

The Respondents’ Cases

6. The lessees did not respond to the application.

The Law

7. Section 20ZA is set out in the appendix to this decision. The Tribunal has discretion to grant dispensation when it considers it reasonable to do so. In addition, the Supreme Court Judgment in [COMPANY] v [NAME] and Others [2013] UKSC 14 empowers the Tribunal to grant dispensation on terms or subject to conditions.

3

Findings

8. The Tribunal finds that the drainage repair works were urgent as the disrepair was causing damage to the basement flat. No lessee has objected to the application. The Tribunal has not identified any prejudice caused to any lessee as a result of the application. Accordingly, the Tribunal grants dispensation unconditionally.

9. This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs have been reasonably incurred or are payable. The residential leaseholders continue to enjoy the protection of sections 19 and 27A of the Act.

[NAME] Chairman

2 October 2023

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

• The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its decisions by virtue of the rule 36 (2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below.

• If a party wishes to appeal against 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.

4

SCHEDULE OF LESSEES

Flat Number Leaseholder

Lower Ground Floor Flat & Garden

Mr [NAME] & Miss [NAME]

686 Ground Floor Flat

Ms [NAME]

686a First Floor Flat

Ms [NAME] [NAME]

686b Second Floor Flat & [NAME] & Miss [APPELLANT] 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (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. (2)In section 20 and this section— “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months. (3)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a)if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b)in any circumstances so prescribed.

5

(4)In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5)Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord— (a)to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the [COMPANY] representing them, (b)to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c)to invite tenants or the [COMPANY] to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d)to have regard to observations made by tenants or the [COMPANY] in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e)to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements. (6)Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a)may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b)may make different provision for different purposes. (7)Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

📊 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 drainage repair works were urgent because the disrepair was causing damage to the basement flat.
  • No lessee objected to the application for dispensation.
  • The Tribunal found no harm was caused to any lessee by the application.
  • The application was properly publicized in the building as required by the directions.

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 drainage works to prevent basement flooding.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation from consultation requirements, while the tenants were represented by a recognised tenants' association.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation because the drainage works were deemed urgent and reasonable, preventing further damage to the basement flat.

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 urgency and necessity of the drainage works to prevent further damage were the most important arguments.

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 seek dispensation from consultation requirements if their works are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgency and necessity of the drainage works, including insurance claims and related invoices, were presented.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days of receiving the written reasons for the decision.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case 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.