First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent repairs needed due to water damage. The decision was based on the urgent need for the repairs and the lack of any suggested prejudice to the tenants.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord is entitled to dispense with consultation requirements for urgent works if it is reasonable to do so.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant a request to bypass consultation requirements for certain works if it 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 water ingress repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent water ingress repairs. The Tribunal found it reasonable to dispense with the requirements due to the urgent nature of the works.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AH/LDC/2024/0673 Property : 113 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents :
[redacted] : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :
Judge Robert Latham
Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 14 April 2025
DECISION
The Tribunal grants this [NAME] to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 without condition in respect of urgent works to address water ingress.
2 The [NAME]
1. By an [NAME], dated 3 December 2024, the Applicant applies for dispensation from the statutory duty to consult in respect of urgent works to address water ingress. The cost of the works exceeds the statutory threshold of £250 per flat. 2. [ADDRESS] is a block which consists of ten self-contained flats. On 23 September 2024, the property suffered water ingress and water damage after a heavy storm. The Applicant arranged for a series of works to be executed as a matter of urgency by [APPELLANT]. The Applicant has provided four invoices which total £8,090. On 23 October 2024, the Applicant notified the Respondents of the works that were proposed. These works are not covered by the insurance policy.
3. On 17 January 2025, the Tribunal issued Directions. The Directions stated that the Tribunal would determine the [NAME] on the papers, unless any party requested an oral hearing. No party has done so.
4. By 7 February 2025, the Applicant was directed to send to the leaseholders by email, hand delivery or first-class post: (i) copies of the [NAME] form (excluding any list of respondents’ names and addresses) unless already sent by the applicant to the [NAME]/sublessee; (ii) a brief statement to explain the reasons for the [NAME]; and (iii) the directions. The Applicant was further directed to display a copy of these in a prominent place in the common parts of the property. On 31 January 2025, the Applicant confirmed that it had complied with this Direction.
5. By 28 February 2025, any [NAME] who opposed the [NAME] was directed to complete a Reply Form which was attached to the Directions and send it both to the Tribunal and to the Applicant. The [NAME] was further directed to send the Applicant a statement in response to the [NAME]. No [NAME] has returned a completed Reply Form opposing the [NAME].
6. The Applicant has provided a Bundle of Documents (46 pages) in support of the [NAME]. It has also provided a copy of the lease for Flat 1.
7. Section 20ZA (1) of the Act provides: “Where an [NAME] 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.”
3 8. The only issue which this Tribunal has been required to determine is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.
9. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant retrospective dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements. This is justified by the urgent need for the works. There is no suggestion that any prejudice has arisen. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant dispensation without any conditions.
10. The Directions make provision for the service of the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal will email a copy of its decision to the Applicant. The Applicant is responsible for serving a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on the Respondents. Judge Robert Latham 14 April 2025
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 by e-mail 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Lift Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Dispensation to Landlord
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Conditional Dispensation for Urgent Cladding Wor…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found in Breach of Multiple Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Granted Right to Manage Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Adjusts Rent for Ground Floor Flat
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 were urgently needed to address water ingress.
- The property suffered water damage after a heavy storm.
- No leaseholder returned a form opposing the application.
- There was no suggestion that any prejudice had arisen from the lack of consultation.
- The applicant confirmed compliance with the direction to send information to leaseholders.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided that the landlord could bypass the usual consultation process for urgent repairs needed due to water damage.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the tenants of a building in London were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements because the repairs were urgent and necessary to address water damage.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1s section 20ZA was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the repairs were urgent and necessary to address water damage.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to bypass the usual consultation process if their repairs are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the urgent need for repairs and the lack of any suggested prejudice to the tenants 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 like this.
