VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Consultation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process with tenants for urgent repairs to a property's downpipe, finding it impractical to consult given the urgency of the situation.

⚖️ Legal holding

Where urgent repairs are required, it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements.

Topics

urgent repairsstatutory consultation requirements

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZAService Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant permission to skip certain consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so, particularly in cases involving urgent repairs to a property.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent repairs to a property's downpipe, citing the impracticability of consulting leaseholders due to the urgent nature of the issue.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2025/0648 Property : 28 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondents : [redacted]

Flat 2 - Mr [NAME] 3 - Mr [NAME] 4- Mr [NAME] 5 - [NAME] 6 - Mr [NAME] of [NAME] : To dispense with the requirement to consult leaseholders Tribunal Member : Judge N [NAME] Panel : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of paper determination : 28 May 2025

DECISION

Decision of the Tribunal

Pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Tribunal grants dispensation from with the statutory requirement to consult leaseholders in respect of the work which forms the subject matter of the Applicant’s [NAME] dated 28 November 2024.

Background

1. By an [NAME] dated 28 November 2024, the Applicant has applied to the Tribunal under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) for dispensation from the consultation requirements contained in section 20 of the 1985 Act in respect of certain qualifying works to 28 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the Property”).

2. The Property is a building comprising five storeys plus a basement, with a mansard roof, which contains six flats. The flats are let to the Respondents on long leases and the Applicant is the Respondents’ landlord.

3. The grounds for seeking dispensation are that, in 2024, work was urgently required to repair a defective downpipe at the rear of the building which was leaking toilet waste onto the flat roof of the Property and causing toilet waste to splash onto nearby windows. The Tribunal has been informed that an initial notice of intention to carry out the work was served on the lessees but that the work was then completed due to the urgent nature of the issue.

4. Directions of the Tribunal were issued on 5 March 2025 and were amended on 28 April 2025 (“the Directions”).

5. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements, insofar as is necessary, in respect of the work described in the [NAME]. This decision does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

6. The Directions included provision that this [NAME] would be determined on the papers unless an oral hearing was requested. No [NAME] has been made by any party for an oral hearing. This matter has therefore been determined by the Tribunal by way of a paper determination on 28 May 2025.

7. The Tribunal did not consider an inspection of the Property to be necessary or proportionate to the issues in dispute.

The Respondents’ case

8. None of the Respondents has submitted a reply form to the Tribunal and/or has made representations to the Tribunal opposing the Applicant’s [NAME] for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements.

The Tribunal’s determination

9. Section 20 of the 1985 Act provides for the limitation of service charges in the event that statutory consultation requirements are not met.

10. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as is the case in this instance) 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.

11. The consultation requirements are set out in the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

12. Section 20ZA of the 1985 Act provides that, where an [NAME] is made to the Tribunal 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. In determining this [NAME], the Tribunal has considered [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 54, [2013] 1 WLR 854.

13.

In all the circumstances and having considered: • the Applicant’s [NAME]; • the evidence filed in support of the [NAME]; and • the fact that none of the Respondents has submitted a reply form to the Tribunal and/or has made representations to the Tribunal opposing the Applicant’s [NAME] for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements; the Tribunal determines, pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements in respect of the work which forms the subject matter of the Applicant’s [NAME] dated 28 November 2024. The Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was not practicable to comply with the statutory consultation requirements in this instance.

14. This decision does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

Judge N Hawkes

Date: 28 May 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 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

  • Urgent repairs are necessary to address serious safety concerns.
  • It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements where there is an urgent need for repairs.
  • Urgent repairs are necessary to ensure safety.
  • Urgent building works are necessary to maintain essential services like heat.
  • Dispensation is sought due to the urgency of the situation.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass the usual consultation process with tenants for urgent repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of a multi-flat property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgently needed and consulting tenants would have been impractical.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the repairs were urgent and consulting tenants would delay the work.

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 the consultation process if their repairs are truly urgent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgent need for repairs and the impracticality of consulting 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.

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.