VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Sewage Pump Replacement

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for a person when replacing a broken sewage pump, due to the urgent nature of the work and the risk of sewage overflow.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and compliance would cause undue delay.

Topics

tenancy disputesurgent repairsconsultation requirements

Provisions

s.20ZA Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant an exemption from consultation requirements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so, particularly when the works are urgent and compliance would cause undue delay.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent sewage pump replacement.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements to a landlord for the urgent replacement of a sewage pump, citing the urgency of the works and the potential for undue delay if consultation were required.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AZ/LDC/2019/0112 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. Applicant : [redacted] Representative : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] [NAME]. Representative : In person Type of [NAME] : [NAME] under S.20ZA Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 for dispensation from the requirements to consult in relation to Qualifying Works. Tribunal member(s) : [NAME] [NAME] and venue of determination : 16 September 2019 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 16 September 2019

DECISION

2

Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that it will exercise its discretion and grant dispensation from the requirements to consult [NAME] in relation to the replacement sewage pump at the premises as detailed in the [NAME]. The [NAME]

1. The applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.

2. The [NAME] which is dated 19 July 2019 relates to the replacement of a sewage pump at the property. The tribunal has been informed that one of the sewage pumps no longer works and requires replacement. The applicant says that the works to replace the pump are urgently required because the sewage system is using the only remaining pump and there is a possibility of a sewage overflow.

3. On 25 July 2019, the tribunal issued directions, which were amended on 5 August. These required amongst other things for any [NAME] who opposed the [NAME] to indicate their opposition on a reply-slip and provide a statement setting out the grounds of opposition.

4. The directions also required the applicant to provide a bundle of documents, including any statements from respondents. A bundle has been supplied to the tribunal and it appears from the documents within that bundle that the [NAME] is agreed by a majority of the [NAME] in the block.

5. The tribunal has considered the papers provided and determines that it should exercise its discretion and grant dispensation from any further requirements to consult [NAME] in relation to these works which are urgently required, and if the applicant were to comply with the Consultation Regulations this would cause undue delay.

6. The parties should be aware however, that the grant of dispensation does not mean that the tribunal is satisfied the works, when complete will be reasonable or the costs of carrying out those works would be either reasonable or payable by the respondents. The respondents’ rights under S.27A of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 to challenge the cost and/or payability of the costs for the works are preserved.

3 Tribunal: [NAME]: 16 September 2019.

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 tribunal granted dispensation because the works were urgently required.
  • Complying with consultation regulations would cause undue delay.
  • One of the sewage pumps was no longer working and needed replacement.
  • There was a possibility of a sewage overflow if the works were delayed.
  • A majority of the leaseholders in the block agreed with the application.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant dispensation from consultation requirements for the replacement of a sewage pump.

Who was involved?

A landlord and various leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and complying with consultation requirements would cause undue delay.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the works were urgent and necessary to prevent a sewage overflow was crucial.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also seek dispensation if their repair needs are urgent and consultation would cause significant delays.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing the urgency of the repair and the potential risks if the pump failed were important.

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 seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property law.

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.