VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Freeholder Granted Dispensation for Emergency Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a freeholder to skip consultation requirements when performing urgent repairs due to a leaking water supply. This decision was based on the necessity and urgency of the work.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are deemed essential and urgent.

Topics

dispensationconsultation requirementsurgent repairs

Provisions

s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements 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 repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to a freeholder from consultation requirements under s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for carrying out essential works to address a leaking mains water supply.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2020/0216 Property : 34-44, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] London Borough of Lambeth Representative : NA Respondents : [redacted] : NA Type of [NAME] : [NAME] for dispensation pursuant to s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member(s) : Judge Shepherd Steve Wheeler MCIEH Venue : Paper decision Date of decision : 1st June 2021

DETERMINATION

The Applicant is given dispensation from the consultation requirements contained in s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. They carried out essential works on 2nd September 2020 to deal with a leak from the mains supply.

The [NAME]

1. The applicant seeks an order pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) (“the 1985 Act”) for dispensation from all or part of the consultation requirements imposed on them by section 20 of the 1985 Act1.

2. The applicant is the freeholder of premises at 34-44 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“The Building”). The building consists of six residential flats including three leasehold flats. The Respondents are the leasehold residents of the premises.

3. The applicant seeks dispensation for essential works to deal with a leaking mains water supply. These works were carried out on an emergency basis in September 2020.

4. The [NAME] were notified of this [NAME] but no objections have been raised.

5. The landlord seeks dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements on the basis of urgency.

6. The tribunal did not consider that an inspection of the Building was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute.

7. The only issue for the tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements of section 20 of the 1985 Act. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. The Tribunal’s decision 8. The Tribunal determines that an order from dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act shall be made dispensing with all of the consultation requirements in relation to the works outlined in the [NAME]. Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision 9. The tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act “if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”.

10. It is not considered that the lessees have suffered any particular prejudice as a result of the failure to follow the correct consultation procedure (see [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14.) The Tribunal accepts that the

1 See Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (SI2003/1987) Schedule 4, Part 2.

landlord’s intentions to carry out the works as soon as possible were genuine and indeed prudent. 11. Again the parties should note that this decision does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. The tenants have the right to challenge such costs by way of a separate [NAME] if they so wish. Name: [NAME]: 1st June 2021

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

  • The works are deemed essential and urgent.
  • The works pose significant safety risks.
  • The landlord's notice proposing a rent increase is incorrectly completed.
  • The tenant is entitled to have improper charges excluded.
  • The local authority can vary a prohibition order to accommodate changes.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision granted dispensation to a freeholder from consultation requirements for urgent repairs.

Who was involved?

The case involved a freeholder and leasehold residents.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were deemed essential and urgent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The court applied sections 20 and 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency and necessity of the repairs.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the freeholder.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also seek dispensation for urgent repairs if they can demonstrate the necessity and urgency of the work.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing the urgency and necessity of the repairs was likely important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

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.