VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Boiler Repairs Without Consultation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent a person repairs. The landlord needed to replace faulty communal boilers immediately, and the tribunal agreed that the situation warranted dispensation from consultation requirements.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under urgent circumstances involving significant property repairs.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent repairsLandlord and Tenant Act 1985

Provisions

section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant a request to bypass consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to consult tenants or recognized tenants' associations before undertaking certain works or entering into agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent a person replacement works.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to a landlord for urgent boiler repairs without consulting tenants, citing the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord sought dispensation due to the urgent nature of the work and the identified faultiness of the communal boilers.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2023/0283 Property : 69-71 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : Ref: [COUNSEL] Respondent : [redacted] : N/A Type of [NAME] : [NAME] for dispensation from consultation pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 4 March 2024

DECISION

2

The tribunal’s decision 1. The tribunal grants the applicant dispensation from all consultation required by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the replacement of the communal boilers at 69-71 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the property’).

_________________________________________________ The [NAME]

2. The applicant/landlord has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of works to be carried out to replace the communal boilers in the building, which have been identified as faulty by a [NAME]. The estimated cost of the works was not provided in the [NAME] but appear to be in the region of £4,500 (plus VAT). The background 3. In a Statement of Case the applicant stated it had instructed [NAME] [APPELLANT] on 13th of October 2023, to turn on the communal boilers at the property as cold weather was approaching. The contractor attended the property and confirmed the boilers need replacing, rather than repair as the cost of repairing would exceed the cost of replacement of the boilers.

4. Due to the urgent nature of the work it was decided to proceed with the replacement of the two communal boilers and the contractor was given permission to go ahead on 27th of October 2023. Since the replacement of the boilers, the applicant states it has not received any communications from the respondent [NAME] on these works and no further reports have been received by any [NAME] about the heating. The hearing 5. Neither party requested an oral hearing and the [NAME] was determined using the documents provided by the parties in the form of a single digital bundle numbering 45 pages. The tribunal’s reasons 6. In reaching its decision, the tribunal satisfied itself that the [NAME] had been notified of the [NAME] and provided with an opportunity to raise any objection. However, neither the applicant nor the tribunal

3 have received any objections to this [NAME] form the respondent [NAME].

7. In the absence of any objections from the [NAME] and having regard to the urgent and necessary nature of the work, for which the applicant seeks dispensation, the tribunal considers it is reasonable and appropriate to grant the dispensation from consultation sought.

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 4 March 2024

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 ([NAME]), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] 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 ([NAME]).

📊 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 tribunal granted dispensation because the landlord had notified the respondent of the application and provided an opportunity to object.
  • The dispensation was granted due to the urgent and necessary nature of the boiler replacement work.
  • The tribunal found it reasonable to grant dispensation because no objections were received from the respondent.
  • The contractor confirmed that replacing the communal boilers was more cost-effective than repairing them.
  • The landlord decided to proceed with the boiler replacement due to the urgent nature of the work as cold weather was approaching.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal granted dispensation to the landlord from the consultation requirements for urgent boiler repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, while the lessees were respondents.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the work was urgent and necessary, and there were no objections raised by the lessees.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1,985 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The urgency and necessity of the boiler replacement were the most important arguments.

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

The decision was in favour of the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also seek dispensation from consultation requirements if their repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence included a statement from a boiler engineer confirming the need for replacement and the lack of objections from the lessees.

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 recommended to consult a solicitor for legal advice on a case 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.