VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Dispensation from Consultation Requirements for Repair Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for repairing damp issues in several flats. The decision was made because the repairs were urgent and necessary to improve living conditions.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are reasonable and urgent.

Topics

tenancy disputesrepair worksdispensation from consultation

Provisions

section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and 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. Consultation requirements refer to the obligations placed on landlords to consult tenants or the recognized tenants' association before undertaking certain works or entering into long-term agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for necessary repairs due to damp issues.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements to a landlord for urgent repair works due to persistent damp issues affecting multiple flats. The decision was based on the substantial extent of the damp problem and the desirability of completing the work during warmer months.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2017

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: CHI/00HP/LDC/2021/0060

Property

: [APPELLANT], 9 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

Respondents

:

[redacted]

: -

Type of Application

:

Dispensation with consultation requirements – section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Member

:

Judge E Morrison

Date and Venue of Hearing

:

Determination on papers

Date of Decision

:

4 August 2021

DECISION

2

The Application

1. This is an application for dispensation from the consultation requirements provided for in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

2. The Applicant management company explains that in excess of 10 out of the 32 flats at [APPELLANT] are suffering from persistent damp, and various remedial works are required “surrounding the buildings”. Although little information has been provided about the cause(s) of the damp, and the precise scope of the proposed repairs, it is said that surveys have been carried out, schedules of work prepared, estimates sought, and contractors are ready to start work. It is submitted that it will be less disruptive to residents if the work is carried out in the warmer months, and this will also allow the flats to dry out and be redecorated before the winter.

3. The Applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20 so the works can be carried out without the delay that following the consultation process would entail.

4. Under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the Tribunal can determine to dispense with the consultation requirements if it is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.

5. The application, although dated 15 December 2020, was received by the Tribunal on 1 July 2021. Directions were issued on 7 July 2021, when it was noted as urgent, and that it would be determined on the papers without an oral hearing. The application and the Directions have been served on the [NAME].

6. The Tribunal directed the [NAME] to indicate in writing by 15 July 2021 whether they consented to or opposed the application. If they opposed, a statement setting out reasons was to be provided. [NAME] replied stating that they agreed with the application. [NAME] objected, but he provided no explanation of his reasons or grounds for objection other than to say “clarification and consultation needed”.

Decision

7. Although the Tribunal would have preferred to have been given more detail about the proposed work, so that it was absolutely clear what scope of work was covered by the application, the application will be granted because of the substantial extent of the damp problem and its effect on residents, the clear desirability of completing the work during the warmer months, and the lack of a specific reasoned objection from any of the [NAME].

3 8. This decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of work covered by the schedule of works and estimates referred to in the application. The Tribunal has made no determination as to whether the cost of the works is reasonable. If a [NAME] wishes to challenge the reasonableness of the cost, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 will be required.

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 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 the application because many flats were suffering from persistent damp.
  • The works needed to be completed during the warmer months to be less disruptive and allow flats to dry.
  • Most of the long leaseholders agreed with 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 from the consultation requirements for repair works due to damp issues.

Who was involved?

A landlord and the leaseholders of several flats were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation because the damp issues were widespread and urgent repairs were needed.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the substantial extent of the damp problem and the need to complete the work during warmer months.

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 might also be able to bypass the consultation process if they can show that the repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Surveys, schedules of work, and estimates for the repairs were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person can appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for 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.