VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Due to Health Risk

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent repairs because the repairs were necessary to address a health risk to a tenant's child with asthma.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if urgent works are necessary to address a significant health risk to a tenant's child.

Topics

tenancy lawurgent repairshealth risks

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant an exemption from consultation requirements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so, particularly when urgent works are necessary to address a significant health risk, such as a tenant's child suffering from asthma.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 due to urgent works needed to address a health risk to a tenant's child suffering from asthma.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs needed to address a health risk to a tenant's child suffering from asthma.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Tribunal reference:

LON/00AY/LDC/2025/0660 Property:

[NAME], [ADDRESS], London [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

[NAME] [APPELLANT]:

[COMPANY]:

Various lessees

Type of [NAME]:

Dispensation from consultation requirements

Tribunal member:

Venue: [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of decision: 08 May 2025

DECISION © CROWN COPYRIGHT

1. This is an [NAME] made by Ms [NAME] of [APPELLANT], the managing agents, on behalf of the Applicant, its client.

2. The [NAME] is for dispensation from the consultation requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), pursuant to s.27ZA of the 1985 Act.

3. Section 20ZA(1) provides that: "Where an [NAME] is made to [the FTT] for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works …, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements." 4. [NAME], [ADDRESS], London [POSTCODE] is a purpose built block of 8 flats situated near to Clapham Common.

5. Directions were given on 17 March 2025. Any lessees or sublessees who opposed the [NAME] were directed to inform the Tribunal by 02 April 2025. The Applicant has confirmed there are no such objections.

6. In its [NAME] the Applicant says:

There was a leak from a cast iron downpipe which was leaking into flat 2 which is a ground floor flat. We had original works carried out to the gutters in 2024 as a contractor had said this was the cause of the leak, however after further investigation they had seen that the down pipe was corroded towards the bottom and this was releasing water. This was causing damp within the living room of the flat and this was getting progressively worse every time it rained.

Works exceeded section 20 threshold. The tenant's child suffers with asthma and the doubt was causing the asthma to worsen, which meant we could not wait for a three month consultation to end and had to action this appropriately.

7. As stated above, there has been no objection to the [NAME] for dispensation.

8. The quoted cost of the works was £8,900.50 plus VAT.

9. The leading authority on applications for dispensation is the Supreme Court’s decision in [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] HLR 2.

10. In that case the Supreme Court held that the main, indeed normally, the sole question for the Tribunal when considering how to exercise its jurisdiction in

accordance with s.20ZA(1) is the real prejudice to the tenants flowing from the landlord’s breach of the consultation requirements. The financial consequences for the landlord of not granting a dispensation is not a relevant factor. The Tribunal may grant dispensation on such conditions as it thinks fit: provided that any such conditions are appropriate in their nature and their effect.

11. There is no evidence before me of any prejudice and I am satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation.

12. This decision only relates to dispensation, not to the reasonableness of the work done or its costs. These can be challenged before the FTT if necessary in separate proceedings.

Name: Judge Brilliant:

Date: 08 May 2025

Rights of appeal

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 leak from a corroded downpipe caused damp in a flat, which worsened with rain.
  • The tenant's child suffered from asthma, and the damp made it worse, requiring urgent action.
  • There were no objections from any lessees or sublessees to the application for dispensation.
  • The Tribunal found no evidence of prejudice to the tenants from the landlord's breach of consultation requirements.
  • It was deemed reasonable to grant dispensation from the consultation requirements.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs needed to address a health risk to a tenant's child with asthma.

Who was involved?

The landlord and various lessees were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the urgent repairs were necessary to address a significant health risk to a tenant's child with asthma.

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 argument that mattered most was that the urgent repairs were necessary to address a significant health risk to a tenant's child with asthma.

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 may also be able to bypass the usual consultation process if urgent repairs are necessary to address a significant health risk.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the health risk to the tenant's child and the urgency of the repairs mattered.

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 involving urgent repairs and health risks.

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.