Landlord Granted Emergency Repair Dispensation

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

HAV/21UF/LDC/2025/0052

Property

:

1-53 Falaise, West Quay, Newhaven, East Sussex, [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[APPELLANT]

Respondent: [redacted]

: None

Type of Application

:

To dispense with the requirement to consult [NAME] about major works section 20ZA of the [NAME]

Tribunal Member

:

[NAME] of Decision

:

22nd April 2026

DECISION

2 Summary of the Decision

1. The Applicant is granted retrospective dispensation under Section 20ZA of the [NAME] from the consultation requirements imposed on the Landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act in relation to emergency repairs to failing mains plumbing services across the 4 separate cores of the building, including repair to two active leaks, and to prevent total loss of mains water supply. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of the works are reasonable or payable.

Background

1. The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of the [NAME] from the consultation requirements imposed on the Landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act. The application was received on 23 March 2026.

2. The Property is described as:

Falaise is a purpose-built block comprising 52, 2 and 3 bedroom residential flats. Flats are separated across 4 individual sections (Cores) each with their own main entrance door. The building was constructed around 2007/2008.

3. The Applicant explains that:

The works in question relate to emergency repairs to failing mains plumbing services across the 4 separate cores of the building, including two currently active leaks which are causing resultant damage to the building fabric. In December 2025, two mains pipes failed within Cores 1 and 3 Falaise, one leaving residents without a working water supply for a period of approximately 10 days and also having caused significant damage to one of four passenger lifts. Following advice from the appointed plumbing contractor, joints to mains pipework across the site could continue to fail at any time. It is proposed that the works be instructed in conjunction with this application, to take place as soon as possible. [RESPONDENT] have been advised of the current system defects, proposed works and provided with the estimate costs associated with the repairs. As at the date of this application, it is anticipated that the cost of the required repairs will be funded from reserves already held. A copy of this application has also been circulated as at the date of submission to the Tribunal. Dispensation is sought on the basis that the building is suffering increasing and regular plumbing faults/failures. The pipework, much of which is original, poor quality plastic pipe and joints dating from the original construction, is now of an age where it is brittle and prone to fracture and failure. The potential risk of a total loss of mains water supply will severely impact habitability of the building for all residents, but most particularly the number of elderly and/or disabled residents.

3 Furthermore, the total failure of the mains will result in significant and destructive water damage.

4. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application is not about the proposed costs of the works, and whether they are recoverable from the [RESPONDENT] as service charges or the possible application or effect of the Building Safety Act 2022. The [RESPONDENT] have the right to make a separate application to the Tribunal under section 27A of the [NAME] to determine the reasonableness of the costs, and the contribution payable through the service charges.

The Law

2. Section 20 of the [NAME] (“the Act”) and the related Regulations provide that where [NAME] undertakes qualifying works with a cost of more than £250 per lease, the relevant contribution of each [NAME] (jointly where more than one under any given lease) will be limited to that sum unless the required consultations have been undertaken or the requirement has been dispensed with by the Tribunal. An application may be made retrospectively.

3. The relevant section of the Act reads as follows:

S.20 ZA Consultation requirements: 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.

4. The appropriate approach to be taken by the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v [NAME] et al [2013] UKSC 14.

5. The leading judgment of Lord [NAME] explained that a Tribunal should focus on the question of whether [NAME] will be, or had been, prejudiced in either paying where that was not appropriate or in paying more than appropriate because the failure of [NAME] to comply with the regulations. The requirements were held to give practical effect to those two objectives and were a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

6. The factual burden of demonstrating prejudice falls on [NAME]. [NAME] must identify what would have been said if able to engage in a consultation process. If [NAME] advances a credible case for having been prejudiced, [NAME] must rebut it. The Tribunal should be sympathetic to [NAME](s).

4

7. Where the extent, quality and cost of the works were in no way affected by [NAME]’s failure to comply, Lord [NAME] said as follows:

I find it hard to see why the dispensation should not be granted (at least in the absence of some very good reason): in such a case the tenants would be in precisely the position that the legislation intended them to be- i.e. as if the requirements had been complied with.

8. The main, indeed normally, the sole question, as described by Lord [NAME], for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether, or not, [NAME] will be or has been caused relevant prejudice by a failure of the Applicant to undertake the consultation prior to the major works and so whether dispensation in respect of that should be granted.

9. The question is one of the reasonableness of dispensing with the process of consultation provided for in the Act, not one of the reasonableness of the charges of works arising or which have arisen.

10. If dispensation is granted, that may be on terms.

11. There have been subsequent Decisions of the higher Courts and Tribunals of assistance in the application of the Decision in [NAME] but none are relied upon or therefore require specific mention in this Decision.

Consideration

12. The Tribunal was provided with a letter from the [NAME] authorising [COMPANY] to act on their behalf.

13. The Directions attached a reply form for the Respondents to complete to confirm whether they agreed with the application or not and if opposed, to provide a statement setting out why they oppose.

14. The Tribunal has not received any objection to the dispensation of the consultation requirements from any of the [NAME].

15. On 9th April 2026, the [NAME] confirmed that they had not received any objections to the application from the Respondents.

16. The reason why dispensation from consultation requirements is said to be required is that there are leaks in the system and a risk of the mains water supply to all flats failing completely.

17. Having considered the application and prior to undertaking this determination, I am satisfied that a determination on the papers remains appropriate, given that the application remains unchallenged.

5 18. None of the [NAME] have asserted that any prejudice has been caused to them. The Tribunal finds that nothing different would be done or achieved in the event of a full consultation with the [NAME], except for the potential delay and potential problems.

19. The Tribunal consequently finds that it is reasonable to dispense with all of the formal consultation requirements in respect of the major works to the building as described in this Decision.

20. This Decision is confined to determination of the issue of dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of emergency repairs to failing mains plumbing services across the 4 separate cores of the building, including repair to two active leaks, and to prevent total loss of mains water supply.

21. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs are payable or reasonable. If a [NAME] wishes to challenge the payability or reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under section 27A of the [NAME] would have to be made.

22. In reaching my decision I have taken account of the fact that no party has objected to the application. [RESPONDENT] have had opportunity to raise any objection, and they have not done so.

23. As a condition of dispensation, the Applicant is required to send a copy of this decision to all [RESPONDENT].

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

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

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.