VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Exemption for Urgent Sewage Plant Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for urgent repairs to a sewage treatment plant. The repairs were deemed necessary due to the plant's poor condition and potential risks to health and safety.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the work is urgent and poses a significant risk to health and safety.

Topics

Service ChargeConsultation RequirementsEmergency Repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZAService Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 20ZA allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to obligations placed on landlords to consult tenants regarding certain works or agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs to a sewage treatment plant.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs to a sewage treatment plant serving shared ownership houses, citing the significant risk to health and safety posed by the plant's condition. Judge L J Bennett, First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), 19 January 2022.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case reference : MAN/13UB/LDC/2021/0025

Property : 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted] the Property (see Annex A)

Type of application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA

Tribunal Member : Deputy Regional Judge [NAME] of decision : 19 January 2022

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

Preliminary

1. [COMPANY] applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) for dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) in respect of work to the sewage treatment plant serving apartments at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (the Property).

2. The Respondents are [NAME] of Shared Ownership Houses at the Property.

Grounds and Submissions

3. The application is dated 18 May 2021.

4. The Applicant is the Lessor of the Houses at the Property.

5. On 2 December 2021 Judge L [NAME] made directions requiring service of the documents by the Applicant on each Respondent. The directions provided that in the absence of a request for a hearing the application would be determined upon the parties’ written submissions.

6. The [COMPANY] are 13 Shared Ownership Houses on long leases subject to a variable service charge.

7. The Applicant explains that the work to the sewage plant is required as it is in a poor state of repair. The type of plant is out of production. It is in an area susceptible to flooding and when high water occurs, the plant floods throughout.

8. The Applicant states that: “[NAME] were identified to install a final effluent pump and extend the separation battle walls to the underside of their respective covers and to replace the 3 existing pumps on the sewage pump at the development.” Further, “Pipework and electric boxes have been tampered with following vandalism of the plant and the plant was not working. The [NAME] then became an emergency.”

9. The Applicant has provided copies of letters to [NAME] informing them of the urgency, the nature of the [NAME] and 2 quotations. Later, the [NAME] were informed of additional [NAME] required. The Applicant did not receive objections and the work has been completed.

10. In response to directions the Applicant has provided copy correspondence, copy quotations, photographs and a sample Shared Ownership Lease.

11. The Tribunal did not receive submissions from a [NAME]. Neither the Applicant nor a Respondent requested a hearing.

12. The Tribunal convened without the parties to make its determination on 19 January 2022.

3

Law

13. Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.

14. Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.

15. Section 20 of the Act states:-

“Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements

Where this Section applies to any qualifying [NAME]…… the relevant contributions of tenants are limited……. Unless the consultation requirements have either:- a. complied with in relation to the [NAME] or b. dispensed with in relation to the [NAME] by …… a tribunal.

This Section applies to qualifying [NAME], if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the [NAME] exceed an appropriate amount”.

16. “The appropriate amount” is defined by regulation 6 of The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) as “……. an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00.”

17. Section 20ZA(1) of the Act states:-

"Where an application is made to a Tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying [NAME] ……..….. the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements."

Tribunal’s Conclusions with Reasons

18. We considered the written evidence within the application.

Our conclusions are:-

19. It is not necessary for us to consider at this stage the extent of the service charges that would result from the [NAME] payable under the terms of the Respondent’s leases. If and when such is demanded and if disputed, it may properly be the subject of a future application to the Tribunal.

20. We accept from the details provided that the work was urgent and has now been completed. A continuing risk had an obvious and significant potential to impact on the health and safety of occupiers and visitors to the Houses at the Property.

21. Although formal consultation was not completed, we accept that [NAME] are aware of the underlying issue and this application. Balancing the need for urgent action against dispensing with statutory requirements devised to protect

4

service charge paying [NAME], we conclude the urgency outweighed any identified prejudice. Dispensation from consultation requirements does not imply that the resulting service charge is reasonable.

22. We conclude it reasonable in accordance with Section 20ZA(1) of the Act to dispense with the consultation requirements, specified in Section 20 and contained in Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987).

23. Nothing in this determination or order shall preclude consideration of whether the Applicant may recover by way of service charge from the Respondents any or all of the cost of the work undertaken or the costs of this application should a reference be received under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Order

24. The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the work specified in the application.

[NAME] Tribunal Judge 19 January 2022

5

Annex A

Respondent [NAME]

Mr [RESPONDENT] & Mrs [RESPONDENT] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] Miss L [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] & Miss [NAME]. [NAME] Mr [NAME] Miss [NAME] Miss [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] & Miss [NAME] Mr [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]

📊 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 work is considered urgent.
  • The work poses significant risks to health and safety.
  • The work is necessary for health and safety reasons.
  • The work is necessary to prevent further damage.
  • The work affects health and safety.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided 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 consultation requirements for urgent repairs to a sewage treatment plant.

Who was involved?

The landlord of shared ownership houses and the leaseholders of those properties.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the landlord because the repairs were urgent and necessary to ensure health and safety.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1bk5 s.20ZA and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the repairs were urgent and necessary to address a significant risk to health and safety.

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 consultation requirements if they can demonstrate that the work is urgent and necessary for health and safety.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence included letters to leaseholders informing them of the urgency, nature of the works, and quotations.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

Yes, 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.