First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Consultation
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to carry out urgent repairs in a building's vaults without consulting the tenants first. The repairs were necessary due to corroded pipes and cables, and the Tribunal decided that the tenants would not suffer any harm from the works.
⚖️ Legal holding
Dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 may be granted if the works are deemed urgent and no prejudice to the tenants is shown.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent works in the vaults of a building.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent works in the vaults of a building. The works were deemed necessary due to corroded pipes and cables, and the Tribunal found no evidence of prejudice to the tenants.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2021/0158 P:Paperremote Property : 30-31 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted]
Respondent [NAME]
: [COUNSEL] LLP
The [NAME] listed on the application Type of application : To dispense with the consultation requirements under S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member(s) :
[NAME] [NAME], CEnvH
Date and venue of determination : Remote on the papers
DECISION
This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the Applicant and not objected to by the Respondent. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, no-one requested the same, and all the issues could be determined on the papers.
2 Decision of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal grants dispensation from all of the consultation requirements under S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to the plumbing, gas and electrical works in the vaults of the building. (2) The question of reasonableness of the works or cost was not included in this application, the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation. The Background 1. The application under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) was made by the applicants on 17th June 2021.
2. The application concerned the replacement of corroded pipes and cables and associated works in the vaults of the building. The works took place between 12 April and 28 May 2021.
3. Directions were issued on 29 June 2021 requiring the applicant to prepare bundles by 27 August 2021 to include statements (i) Setting out the full grounds for the application, including all of the documents on which the landlord relies and copies of any replies from the tenants; (ii) The [NAME] were asked to confirm by 6 August 2021 whether or not they would give their consent to the application. (iii) In the event that such agreement was not forthcoming the [NAME] were to state why they opposed the application; and provide copies of all documents to be relied upon.
4. Objections to the application were received from the five [NAME] of Flats B, C and J.
5. The [NAME] were informed in the Directions issued by the Tribunal that the question of reasonableness of the works or cost was not included in this application, the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation. The Evidence 6. 30-[ADDRESS] is a town house on the lower ground, ground and four upper floors which has been converted into flats. The service
3 pipes and cables serving the flats are situated in the vaults of the building.
7. The freeholders were carrying out refurbishment works to Flat A on the lower ground floor of the building. While clearing out the vaults the contractors became aware of a strong smell of gas emanating from the gas pipe serving Flat B which is also on the lower ground floor. During the preparatory works it became obvious that not only were the gas pipes corroded but also the water pipes and the electrical mains cables were running among the pipework.
8. The applicants stated that the works were urgent. The works included the replacement of the corroded pipework, insulation of the pipework where appropriate, break out works, temporary supply of water and gas, reinstatement works and supply of heaters when no gas was available. The applicants explained that unprotected copper water pipes had been laid over unprotected copper gas pipes, historic leaks and a reaction with the concrete had exacerbated their decay. Their written representations were supported by a number of colour photographs illustrating the conditions within the vaults.
9. The five lessees objecting to the application made a joint submission in which they stated that as the works were originally described by a property manager as “essential maintenance works” they could not have been emergency works. The respondents further suggested that as three months had elapsed since the need for the works became apparent that S20 consultation could have been undertaken prior to the application for dispensation being made on 17 June 2021. Other grounds related to the reasonableness of the works and associated costs.
10. It was agreed that no consultation has been carried out in respect of the works. The Decision 11. The relevant test to be applied in an application for dispensation was set out by the Supreme Court in [COMPANY] v [NAME] & Ors [2013] UKSC 14 where it was held that the purpose of the section 20 consultation procedure was to protect tenants from paying for inappropriate works or paying an inappropriate amount. Dispensation should not result in prejudice to the tenant.
12. The Tribunal determines that it was unrealistic for the applicant to consult on the works when repair of the gas leak was clearly urgent and
4 the extent of the work necessary only became obvious as the opening up of the area was completed.
13. Those sections of the respondent’s submissions relating to the reasonableness and cost of the works and fees are not within the scope of this application.
14. The Tribunal determines from the evidence before it that no prejudice to the lessees has been demonstrated.
15. On the evidence before it, and in these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the application for dispensation be granted.
Name: [NAME]: 6 September 2021
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. If a party wishes to appeal 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roofing Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Granted Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation in First-tier Tribunal Ca…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fire Door Replacement Works Allowed Without Full Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Under s.20ZA
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works Under Landlord and…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Carpet Replacement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
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 deemed urgent.
- No prejudice is shown to the tenants.
- The works are necessary for fire safety.
- The works are urgent and necessary.
- There is no substantial prejudice to the tenants.
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 carry out urgent repairs without consulting the tenants first.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the tenants of a building were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord could proceed with the repairs without consulting the tenants because the works were urgent and there was no evidence of harm to the tenants.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The court applied Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the works were urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might also be able to get dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs showing the condition of the pipes and cables were important evidence.
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 get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
