VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Pump Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to skip consulting tenants before carrying out urgent repairs to a pump. This decision was based on section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which allows landlords to seek dispensation from consultation in certain circumstances.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and necessary to prevent a significant failure of equipment.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent repairsLandlord and Tenant Act 1985

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

Under this section, a landlord can apply to a tribunal for permission to bypass consultation requirements if the works are deemed urgent and necessary to prevent a significant failure of equipment. The tribunal will grant this permission if it deems it reasonable to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for urgent repairs to a pump.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation to the landlord for urgent repairs to a pump, citing section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The respondents had not objected to the application and had not shown any substantial prejudice from the lack of consultation prior to the works being carried out.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :

LON/00BJ/LDC/2025/0864

Property : [NAME], 278 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME]: [COUNSEL] Respondents : [redacted] : N/A Type of application : Dispensation for consultation – s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 17 November 2025

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants the applicant the dispensation from consultation

sought in respect of works to the pump as per the quotation provided by

[COMPANY] dated 24 June 2025. _____________________________________________________ The application 1. The applicant seeks dispensation from consultation pursuant to s.20ZA

of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The background 2. The subject property is a purpose-built block of flats comprising 38

residential units and 1 commercial unit on the ground floor. 3. The applicant seeks dispensation from consultation in respect of

significant repair works to the pump due to a failure of the on-site

equipment. The work is said to be required as a matter of urgency, in

order to prevent a significant failure of the pump and the loss of a water

supply to the subject property. 4. The respondents were not served with an s.20 consultation notices as the

applicant wished to proceed immediately with the quotation provided by

the current pump maintenance contractors [COMPANY]. Subsequently,

the respondent leaseholders were provided with a copy of the application

and details of the anticipated costs of £5,955.00 (plus VAT). The hearing 5. Neither party requested an oral hearing and therefore the tribunal

determined the application using the 86 digital bundle provided by the

applicant. 6. No objections to the application were received from the respondents. The decision 7. The tribunal is satisfied that works to the pump providing a water supply

to the subject premises are required expeditiously. The tribunal is also

satisfied the respondents have not objected to the application and/or

have failed to show they have been caused any substantial prejudice by

the absence of any consultation prior to the works being carried out;

[COMPANY] v Benson & others [2011] EWCA Civ 38.

3 8. Therefore, the tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought

by the applicant in respect of works to the pump as per the quote dated

24 June 2025 from [COMPANY].

Name:

Judge Tagliavini Date: 17 November 2025

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal 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 should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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. 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. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 was satisfied that the pump works were needed quickly.
  • The leaseholders did not object to the application.
  • The leaseholders failed to show they were significantly harmed by the lack of prior consultation.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant the landlord dispensation from consulting the tenants before carrying out urgent repairs to a pump.

Who was involved?

The landlord and various leaseholders of a residential property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation because the repairs were deemed urgent and necessary to prevent a significant failure of the pump.

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 that the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent a significant failure of the pump.

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 might be able to obtain dispensation from consultation if their repairs are urgent and necessary to prevent a significant failure of equipment.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The quotation provided by the current pump maintenance contractors was a key document.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions 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 cases 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.