VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Drain Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a landlord to skip the usual consultation process for urgent drain repairs. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent further flooding in the basement flats and to maintain the safety of the building.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary to maintain safety.

Topics

tenancy disputesrepair works

Provisions

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent drain repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements to the landlord for urgent drain repairs to maintain the safety of the building for its residents. The landlord sought dispensation due to the urgency of the works, which were necessary to address recurrent flooding in the basement flats.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2021/0234 P:REMOTE Property : [NAME], 215 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [APPELLANT]

Respondents : [redacted] Application

Representative : Not represented Type of Application : [POSTCODE] Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Member : Judge F J Silverman MA LLM Ms S Coughlin MEICH Date of paper consideration : 09 December 2021 Date of Decision : 09 December 2021

DECISION

2

The Tribunal determines that it will exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 on the grounds that the works proposed by the Applicant are required urgently to maintain the safety of the building for its residents. No objections were received to the application.

REASONS

1. By an application made to the Tribunal on 07 September 2021 the Applicant seeks a determination of its application for dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by s. 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

2. Directions were issued by the Tribunal on 05 October 2021.

3. This matter was determined by a paper consideration P:REMOTE on 09 December 2021 at which the Tribunal considered the Applicant’s application and accompanying documents.

4. The Directions issued by the Tribunal had been sent by the Applicant to all Respondents asking them to respond and to indicate whether or not they opposed the application. No objections were received by the Tribunal.

5. The Applicant applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in order to undertake urgent work to the property to maintain and repair the drains which were causing recurrent flooding to the basement flats in the building.

6. No s20 consultation has yet been undertaken but, as stated above, no objections to the application have been received from the Respondents.

7. The Applicant seeks dispensation from all consultation requirements as it would not be practical or possible to comply properly with the consultation requirements given the urgency of the works.

8. The supplied estimate for the proposed works quotes a price of £4,990 excluding VAT and the application states that the works are qualifying works, which are works that, without a dispensation from the Tribunal, would require the Applicant to follow the consultation requirements set out in section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

9. The application is said to be urgent because the blockage to the drains is causing recurrent flooding of the basement flats. No objections or comments have been received from the Respondents.

3

10. The Applicant therefore requests the Tribunal to grant a dispensation from compliance with the full requirements of the section in order to allow the sum incurred to be recovered through the service charge.

11. The Tribunal was not asked to inspect the property and in the context of the issues before it and the current Coronavirus guidance did not consider that an inspection of the property would be either necessary or proportionate.

12. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under s.20ZA of the Act. The wording of s.20ZA is significant. Subs. (1) provides:

“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” (emphasis added).

13. The Tribunal understands that the purposes of the consultation requirements is to ensure that [NAME] are given the fullest possible opportunity to make observations about expenditure of money for which they will in part be liable.

14. Having considered the submissions made by the Applicant the Tribunal is satisfied that the works carried out are necessary and urgent and that no undue prejudice will be caused to or suffered by any tenant by the grant of dispensation under s20ZA.

15. This determination does not affect the tenants’ rights to apply to the Tribunal challenging the payability or reasonableness of the service charges.

Judge F J Silverman as Chairman Date 09 December 2021

Note: Appeals

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].

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

4 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 proposed works were urgently needed to maintain the safety of the building for residents.
  • The drains were causing recurrent flooding in the basement flats, making the work urgent.
  • No objections were received from the lessees regarding the application for dispensation.
  • It would not be practical to follow the full consultation requirements due to the urgency of the works.
  • The Tribunal was satisfied that the works were necessary and urgent, causing no undue prejudice to tenants.

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 skip the consultation process for urgent drain repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of the building were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and necessary to maintain the safety of the building.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency and necessity of the repairs to maintain the safety of the building.

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 may also be able to obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if their works are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The estimate for the proposed works and the statement that the works were urgent and necessary were important.

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 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.