Management Company Secures Urgent Repairs Dispensation from First-tier Tribunal
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a management company to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent repairs needed due to water damage, ensuring the work could start immediately without unnecessary delays.
⚖️ Legal holding
A management company may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so and no objections are raised.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant a request to bypass consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State regarding providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenants to suggest additional estimators, considering tenant feedback, and giving reasons for certain actions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs due to water ingress.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted a management company dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing urgent repairs due to water ingress without following the full consultation process.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2017
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
: CHI/21UG/LDC/2021/0059
Property
: The [APPELLANT] (Flats 1-36), Junction of [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
[COUNSEL], [NAME]
Respondents
:
[redacted]
: -
Type of Application
:
Dispensation with consultation requirements – section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Tribunal Member
:
Judge E Morrison
Date and Venue of Hearing
:
Determination on papers
Date of Decision
:
4 August 2021
DECISION
2
The Application
1. This is an application for dispensation from the consultation requirements provided for in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
2. [COMPANY], which is wholly lessee-owned, explains that The [APPELLANT] comprises five low rise blocks. Work is required to prevent water ingress into the block housing flats 13-18. A number of different problems having been identified which will require work including replacement of lintels and cavity trays and some re- pointing. The cost is presently estimated at £34,000.00, and the [NAME] were informed “earlier in the year”, providing funds which, with the addition of monies held in reserve, will be sufficient to cover the anticipated cost. The Applicant submits that it is important for work to commence during the summer, whilst the weather is more predictable. Due to the cost of scaffolding it is more efficient for all the repairs to be carried out under a single contract.
3. The Applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20 so the works can be carried out without the delay that following the consultation process would entail.
4. Under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the Tribunal can determine to dispense with the consultation requirements if it is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.
5. The application was received by the Tribunal on 23 June 2021. Directions were issued on 2 July 2021, when it was noted as urgent and that it would be decided on the papers. The application and the Directions have been served on the [NAME].
6. The Tribunal directed the [NAME] to indicate in writing by 16 July 2021 whether they consented to or opposed the application. [NAME] replied stating that they agreed with the application. No objections were received.
Decision
7. The Tribunal would have preferred to have been given both more detail about the proposed work, so that it was absolutely clear what scope of work was covered by the application, and an explanation why the full consultation process could not have been carried out earlier in the year. However, the application will be granted because it is clear that work is required, that it is desirable to complete the work during the warmer months, and because there has been no objection from any of the [NAME].
3 8. This decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of work to remedy water ingress into the block comprising flats 13-18. The Tribunal has made no determination as to whether the cost of the works is reasonable. If a [NAME] wishes to challenge the reasonableness of the cost, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 will be required.
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] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
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 Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Entitled to Purchase Freehold Interest at Determined Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation from Consultation Requirements for Repair Wor…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Urgent Dispensation for Fire Safety Measures
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Management Company Granted Dispensation for Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Additional Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Urgent Fire Safety Upgrades Without Leaseholde…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Not Found in Breach Over Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Lighting Works Dispensation
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
- Dispensation is granted when the management company's actions are deemed reasonable.
- Dispensation is allowed if there are no objections raised by leaseholders.
- Urgent works that do not cause relevant prejudice to leaseholders can bypass consultation requirements.
- Dispensation is granted under urgent circumstances, especially those involving health and safety.
- Management companies are entitled to dispensation if the works are reasonable and there is no opposition.
❌ 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?
It allowed the management company to skip the consultation process for urgent repairs due to water damage.
Who was involved?
The management company of a residential property and the leaseholders of the affected flats.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the dispensation because the work was urgent and necessary, and no leaseholders objected.
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 the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from the leaseholders.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also apply for dispensation if the repairs are urgent and leaseholders do not object.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing the urgency of the repairs and confirmation that leaseholders had no objections mattered.
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.
