VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Repairs to Communal Water Pumps

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent repairs to communal water pumps in a block of flats because no leaseholder objected.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and no leaseholder objects.

Topics

dispensation from consultation requirementsurgent repairs

Provisions

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

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and outlines the types of requirements that can be prescribed by regulations.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs to communal water pumps.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to communal water pumps in a block of flats. No leaseholder objected to the application.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AG/LDC/2021/0179 HMCTS Code : P: PAPER REMOTE Property : 59 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] represented by [APPELLANT] Respondent: [redacted] :

Dispensation from consultation requirements under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 20ZA Tribunal Members :

Judge Professor R Percival

Venue : Remote paper determination Date of Decision : 30 September 2021

DECISION

2

Decisions of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal, pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), grants dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the works the subject of the application. Procedural 1. The landlord submitted an application for retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) and the regulations thereunder, dated 5 July 2021.

2. The Tribunal gave directions on 27 July 2021. The directions provided for a form to be distributed to those who pay the service charge to allow them to object to or agree with the applications, and, if objecting, to provide such further material as they sought to rely on. The application and directions was required to be sent to [RESPONDENT] and any sublessees, and to be displayed as a notice in the common parts of the property. The deadline for return of the forms, to the Applicant and the Tribunal, was 20 August 2021.

3. The Applicant confirmed that the relevant documentation had been sent, and posted as notices, as required by the directions.

4. It appears that the Applicant has not provided a schedule of [RESPONDENT]. Nonetheless, no response from a [RESPONDENT] has been received by the Tribunal, and the Applicant confirms that no reply has been received by it. The property and the works 5. The property is a block of eight flats.

6. The block is served by two communal water pumps. On inspection in June 2021 by [NAME], one of the pumps was found to be inoperative, so the system was relying entirely on the second pump. However, the second pump was also operating at a lower than acceptable level, and the [NAME] recommended replacing both pumps as the same time, in view of the danger of the second pump also failing. The estimate for the works was £7,318.66.

7. The application states that the Applicants planned to have the work undertaken in July, and it is assumed that it has been completed.

3 Determination 8. The Tribunal is concerned solely with an application under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with the consultation requirements under section 20 of the same Act.

9. In the first place, I accept that prudence dictates undertaking the work to both pumps as a matter of some urgency. Were the second pump to fail before consultation had been completed, [RESPONDENT] would have been put to considerable inconvenience.

10. Secondly, as stated, no response has been received from the [RESPONDENT]. As a result, none of [RESPONDENT] have sought to claim any prejudice as a result of the consultation requirements not having been satisfied. Where that is the case, the Tribunal must, quite apart from any question of urgency, allow the application: [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] 1 WLR 854.

11. This application relates solely to the granting of dispensation. If the [RESPONDENT] considers the cost of the works to be excessive or the quality of the workmanship poor, or if costs sought to be recovered through the service charge are otherwise not reasonably incurred, then it is open to them to apply to the Tribunal for a determination of those issues under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Name: Judge Prof Richard Percival Date: 30 September 2021

4 Appendix of relevant legislation

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 20 (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate tribunal . (2) In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement. (3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount. (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount. (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in

5 accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.] Section 20ZA

(1) Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation 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. (2) In section 20 and this section— “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a [NAME], for a term of more than twelve months. (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b) in any circumstances so prescribed. (4) In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord— (a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the [COMPANY] representing them, (b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c) to invite tenants or the [COMPANY] to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the [COMPANY] in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements. (6) Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b) may make different provision for different purposes. (7) Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

📊 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 accepted that replacing both water pumps was urgent to avoid considerable inconvenience to leaseholders.
  • No leaseholder responded to the application, indicating no prejudice from the lack of consultation.
  • The landlord confirmed that all required documentation was sent and posted as notices.

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 consultation requirements for urgent repairs to communal water pumps.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the leaseholders of a block of flats.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and no leaseholder objected.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from leaseholders.

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

For the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

If repairs are urgent and leaseholders do not object, a landlord may be able to bypass consultation requirements.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The engineer's report on the condition of the water pumps and the lack of responses from leaseholders.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, but only if there are grounds for appeal under the applicable laws.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

Yes, a solicitor can help ensure your rights are protected and guide you through the process.

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.