VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Repairs to Rainwater Pipe

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass formal consultation for urgent repairs to a rainwater pipe because the tenants did not object and were not substantially prejudiced.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation for urgent repairs if the tenants have not objected or suffered substantial prejudice.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent repairsLandlord and Tenant Act 1985

Provisions

s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and 'qualifying long term agreement' as an agreement lasting over twelve months. The consultation requirements can include providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenants to suggest estimators, considering tenant observations, and giving reasons for certain actions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for urgent repairs to a rainwater pipe under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to a landlord for urgent repairs to a rainwater pipe under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as the tenants had not objected and had not suffered substantial prejudice.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :

LON/00BA/LDC/2025/0811

Property : 1-14 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : MCS Ref: [COUNSEL] Respondents : [redacted] : N/A Type of [NAME] : Dispensation for consultation – s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 17 November 2025

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants the applicant the dispensation from consultation

sought in respect of works of repair to a rainwater pipe and carried out

in August 2025 by [NAME].J. [NAME] ([NAME]) in the

sum of £4,380.00 (inc. VAT). _____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. The applicant seeks dispensation from consultation pursuant to s.20ZA

of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The background 2. The subject property is a purpose-built block of 14 flats. 3. The applicant seeks dispensation from consultation in respect of works

of repair to a defective vertical rainwater pipe which has caused the

ingress of water into four flats and the communal areas and

substantial damage. One of the four flats is said to have become

uninhabitable due to the ingress of water. In addition the water ingress

presents a potential source of danger to electrical installations located in

the basement of the premises.

4. The respondents were not served with an s.20 consultation notices but

notified informally of the need for urgent works which were carried out

in August 2025 by [NAME].[NAME]. [NAME] in the sum of £4,380.00 (inc. VAT).

Subsequently, the [NAME] were individually provided

with a copy of the [NAME] and the tribunal’s Directions by the

applicant. The hearing 5. Neither party requested an oral hearing and therefore the tribunal

determined the [NAME] using the 72 digital bundle provided by the

applicant. 6. No objections to the [NAME] were received from the respondents. The decision 7. The tribunal is satisfied that works to the pump providing a water supply

to the subject premises were required as a matter of urgency. The

tribunal is also satisfied the respondents have not objected to the

[NAME] and/or have failed to show they have been caused any

3

substantial prejudice by the absence of any consultation prior to the

works being carried out; [COMPANY] v [NAME]

[2011] EWCA Civ 38. 8. Therefore, the tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought

by the applicant in respect of works to the rainwater pipe as carried out

by [NAME].[NAME] in the sum of £4,380.00 (inc VAT)..

Name:

Judge Tagliavini Date: 17 November 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] 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 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).

4

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 10 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 were urgently needed to repair a defective rainwater pipe that caused water ingress and substantial damage.
  • One of the flats became uninhabitable due to the water ingress, highlighting the urgency of the repairs.
  • The water ingress posed a potential danger to electrical installations in the basement.
  • The tenants did not object to the application for dispensation from consultation.
  • The tenants failed to show they suffered any substantial prejudice from the lack of prior consultation.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant the landlord dispensation from consulting the tenants for urgent repairs to a rainwater pipe.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of a block of flats were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the landlord could bypass formal consultation because the tenants did not object and were not substantially prejudiced.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the tenants had not objected to the repairs and had not suffered any substantial prejudice.

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 be able to bypass formal consultation if the tenants do not object and are not substantially prejudiced.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objection from the tenants mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions 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.