Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Works to Prevent Water Ingress
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to proceed with urgent works to fix water leakage into a basement flat without consulting the a person. The works were considered too urgent to wait for consultations.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be dispensed from consulting a person if the works are urgent and consultation is impracticable.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant a landlord dispensation from consulting tenants if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so. It specifies that the consultation requirements can include providing details of proposed works, obtaining estimates, inviting tenants to suggest additional 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 to the landlord from consulting a person for urgent works.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to a landlord from consulting leaseholders for urgent works to prevent water ingress into a basement flat. The works were deemed necessary and impracticable to consult leaseholders due to urgency.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2022/0055 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : P: PAPERREMOTE. Property : 22 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. Applicant : [redacted] Representative : [COUNSEL] : [RESPONDENT]. Respondent : [redacted] Representative : In person. Type of application : Application for dispensation under S.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Ms. [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT] Mr. [NAME]. [NAME] [NAME] : Remote. Date of decision : 20 June 2022.
DECISION
2
Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing. This has been a remote determination on the papers, which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE.. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and all issues could be determined on the papers. The documents that the tribunal was referred to are in a bundle of 47 pages, the contents of which have been noted. Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants dispensation from the requirements to consult [NAME] in respect of the works to the aco drain system as per the application. The application 1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.20za of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) in relation to qualifying works involving the installation of an Aco drain to prevent water ingress. The applicant says that water was seeping into the property causing damage to the basement flat and that the works to supply the drain were under the consultation threshold, but that once the work started it became more extensive, bringing the costs above the threshold and therefore the need to consult [NAME]. Works had already started and therefore the applicant seeks retrospective dispensation from the requirements to consult.
2. Temporary repairs were carried out to the entrance steps, with permanent repairs due to be undertaken during the external repairs and redecoration works due later this year.
3. The tribunal issued directions on 29 April 2022 that required the applicant to serve a copy of the application and the directions on the respondent [NAME] by 6 May 2022. Those respondents who opposed the application were directed to provide their statement of case to the tribunal and the applicant by 27 May. The tribunal directed that this matter be dealt with on the papers during the week commencing 20 June 2022.
4. A bundle of documents was lodged, this included the incorrect lease for the property. However, this determination does not deal with the liability to pay for these works, merely whether the landlord must consult with [NAME] or not. Before raising invoices for the works the applicant should check the relevant lease to ensure that it enables recovery of the sums claimed.
3 5. The tribunal has been provided with the correspondence between the parties, but there is nothing from the [NAME] to say that they object to the application. Reasons:
6. The tribunal is satisfied that the works to prevent water ingress into the basement flat were required urgently, and that it was not feasible for the landlord to consult [NAME] under S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
7. The respondent [NAME] have not objected to the application and in the circumstances the tribunal exercises its discretion and grants dispensation from the requirements to consult. Name: [NAME] [NAME]: 20 June 2022.
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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application 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 making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Communal Door Lock Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Management Company Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Repai…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Repairs Dispensation Without Consultat…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects Administrative Fees for Ground Rent Collection
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Determination for Sheltered Housing Tenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Remediation Works Approved Without Prior Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
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 to prevent water from entering the basement flat were urgently needed.
- It was not practical for the landlord to consult the respondent about the works.
- The respondent did not object to the application for dispensation.
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 to the landlord from consulting leaseholders for urgent works.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the leaseholders were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and impracticable to consult leaseholders.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 20ZA was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the works were urgent and impracticable to consult leaseholders.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might also be able to get dispensation if their works are urgent and impracticable to consult leaseholders.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents related to the urgency of the works and the impracticability of consulting leaseholders mattered.
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 a case like this.
