Landlord Granted Urgent Repairs Dispensation in Tenancy Law Case
📌 In brief
In this case, the First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord permission to bypass consultation requirements for urgent repairs. The repairs were deemed necessary to address water damage and maintain the safety of the building for its residents.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if urgent works are necessary to maintain safety.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant a request to waive consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to obligations imposed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, which can include providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, and considering tenants' observations.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements due to urgent repairs needed.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements to a landlord for urgent repairs to address water ingress and maintain safety. The decision was based on the urgency of the works and the lack of objections from tenants.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AP/LDC/2021/0064 P:REMOTE Property : 52 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME]
Respondents : [redacted] [NAME] & [NAME] (Flat 2)[COUNSEL] (Flat 3)Ms [COUNSEL] [NAME](Flat 4)
Representative : Not represented Type of Application : [POSTCODE] Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Member : Judge F J Silverman MA LLM
Date of paper consideration : 14 June 2021
Date of Decision : 14 June 2021
2
DECISION
REASONS
1. By an application made to the Tribunal on 08 March 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 16 March 2021.
3. This matter was determined by a paper consideration P:REMOTE on 14 June 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 repair water ingress which was causing damage to one of the 4 flats in the building.
6. No consultation has been undertaken but as stated above, no objections to the application have been received from the Respondents.
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 were required urgently to maintain the safety of the building for its residents. No objections were received to the application.
3
7. The Applicant seeks dispensation from all consultation requirements as it would not have been practical or possible to comply properly with the consultation requirements given the urgency of the works .
8. Three estimates for the proposed works were obtained of which the cheapest provider was £2,820 including 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 water ingress was causing damage to flat 2 and also affecting other flats in the building . It is understood that the works were carried out in March 2021. The [NAME] were kept informed throughout of the progress of the works and were served with a notice of intention to do works on 05 February 2021 following the report of the leak and inspection of the property in January 2021. No objections or comments have been received from the Respondents.
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 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 leaseholders are given the fullest possible opportunity to make observations about expenditure of money for which they will in part be liable .
4 14. Having considered the submissions made by the Applicant the Tribunal is satisfied that the works carried out were necessary 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 14 June 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 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Lighting Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Safety Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works at Albion Riversi…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fire Alarm Upgrade Dispensation Granted in Residential Property Case
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation with Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Safety Works Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
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 needed to carry out urgent works to maintain safety.
- The works were deemed necessary for ensuring safety.
- The landlord was able to bypass consultation requirements due to the urgency of the situation.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No relevant factors identified in the provided cases that went against the claimant.
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.
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 repairs were urgent and necessary to maintain the safety of the building.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from tenants.
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 if their repairs are urgent and necessary for safety.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Estimates for the repairs and a notice of intention to do the works 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 recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
