VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Exemption for Urgent Repairs Without Tenant Consent

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process with tenants for urgent repairs due to a severe water leak. The decision was made because the repairs were necessary to ensure safety and no one objected to the application.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be exempted from statutory consultation requirements if repairs are urgent and there is no prejudice to tenants.

Topics

statutory consultation requirementsurgent repairs

Provisions

Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant an exemption from consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. It specifies that 'qualifying works' refer to work done on buildings or premises, and 'qualifying long term agreement' refers to agreements 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 unconditional dispensation for repairs due to a severe water leak without consulting tenants.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted unconditional dispensation for repairs due to a severe water leak without consulting tenants, citing the lack of prejudice to tenants and the urgency of the repairs.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2022/0022 Landlord /Applicant : [redacted] Borough of Lambeth Property : 1-24 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Representative : Mr [COUNSEL] [NAME] Tenants/ Respondents : [redacted] on the Schedule below Representatives : None Tribunal :

Mr [NAME] Mrs [NAME] of Decision : 9 May 2022

DECISION

Covid-19 pandemic: description of determination This has been a remote determination. The form of remote determination was P: PAPERREMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, no-one requested the same, and all matters could be determined on the papers. The documents that the Tribunal were referred to are in a bundle of 43 pages, the contents of which the Tribunal has noted.

2

Decision 1. Dispensation in respect of costs of £15,187.50 (plus VAT) to repair a severe leak on the incoming main water supply is GRANTED UNCONDITIONALLY. Reasons Background 1. On 31 January 2021, the applicant applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of repairs which have been carried out to remedy a severe leak on the incoming main water supply. This was said to be leaking into the electrical intake cupboard within the building. Repairs were therefore urgent.

2. On 18 March 2021, the Tribunal set the case down for determination by written representations unless any party objected, which none did. The applicant was directed to serve the application on the respondents and give publicity within the common parts of the property. The Applicants’ Case 3. On 11 January 2022, the Council was notified of the leak. T Brown Group, the Council’s long term contractor was instructed and isolated the water supply. This caused major disruption to the tenants. Owing to a health and safety risk to the residents the works were undertaken as an emergency and consultation was not possible. 4. [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 as the Respondents have suffered no prejudice and unconditional dispensation should be granted. The Tenants/Respondents’ case 5. None of the tenants/respondents responded to the application. The Law

6. Section 20ZA is set out in the appendix to this decision. The Tribunal has discretion to grant dispensation when it considers it reasonable to do so. In addition, the Supreme Court Judgment in [COMPANY] v Benson and Others [2013] UKSC 14 empowers the Tribunal to grant dispensation on terms or subject to conditions. Findings

3 7. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has acted reasonably in dealing with this urgent disrepair and it notes that that none of the tenants have objected to the application. Therefore dispensation under section 20ZA is granted unconditionally in respect of the consultation requirements for these works.

8. However, this decision has no bearing on the question of the reasonableness of costs to be incurred or their payability. The Tribunal makes no findings in relation to those matters.

[NAME]

9 May 2022

Schedule of [NAME] Mr [NAME] R [NAME] Mr [NAME] Miss [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [COMPANY] Mrs [NAME] Miss [NAME] Mr [NAME] Ms [NAME] OF APPEAL

• The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its decisions by virtue of the rule 36 (2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below.

• If a party wishes to appeal against 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.

4

• 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.

Appendix

Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (1)Where an application is made to [the appropriate 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. (2)In section 20 and this section— “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months. (3)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a)if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b)in any circumstances so prescribed. (4)In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5)Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord— (a)to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants’ association representing them, (b)to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c)to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates,

5 (d)to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e)to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements. (6)Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a)may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b)may make different provision for different purposes. (7)Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

📊 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 landlord claims the repairs are urgent and necessary.
  • The landlord demonstrates there is no prejudice to tenants.
  • The landlord shows the urgency of the repairs justifies dispensation from consultation requirements.
  • The landlord proves the repairs are reasonable and necessary.
  • The landlord provides evidence that the repairs reflect statutory requirements for urgent disrepair.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No applicable factors provided in the similar cases)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision allowed the landlord to bypass the usual consultation process with tenants for urgent repairs due to a severe water leak.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements, while the tenants did not respond to the application.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation unconditionally because the repairs were urgent and there was no evidence of prejudice to the tenants.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the repairs were urgent and there was no prejudice to the tenants.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be able to bypass the usual consultation process if they can demonstrate the urgency of the repairs and the lack of prejudice to the tenants.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the documentation of the leak and the urgency of the repairs.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days of receiving the written reasons for the decision.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for specific legal issues.

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.