Tribunal allows dispensation of consultation requirements for urgent pump replacement in London
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a management company to bypass certain consultation requirements because of urgent repairs needed for faulty pumps in a residential building. The pumps were failing and could cause flooding, posing significant health and safety risks.
⚖️ Legal holding
It is reasonable to dispense with statutory consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 when there are urgent health and safety concerns involving the replacement of critical equipment.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant permission to skip consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal allowed the dispensation of consultation requirements for the replacement of foul pumps due to urgent health and safety concerns.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to foul pumps in a residential property. The Tribunal found it reasonable to dispense with the requirements given the health and safety risks involved.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2017
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AK/LDC/2021/0282 Property :
1-10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant : [redacted] :
Respondents : [redacted] application Representative :
Type of application : For the dispensation of some of the consultation requirements under s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members :
Judge Simon Brilliant
Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 28 June 2022
DECISION
2 Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal determines that those parts of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ("the Act") which have not been complied with are to be dispensed with. This has been a hearing on the papers which has been not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and all issues could be determined on paper. The critical documents that I was referred to are in the Applicant’s bundles. The order made is described at the end of these reasons. The application 1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.20ZA of the Act for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Act. The application was dated 01 November 2021.
2. Directions of the Tribunal were issued on 04 May 2022.
3. The case was listed for a paper determination. No request had been made by any of the parties for an oral hearing. The hearing 4. The matter was determined by way of a paper hearing which took place on 28 June 2022. The background 5. 1-10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] is a purpose-built residential block of 10 flats. The application 6. The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of both foul pumps. There was found to be heavy sludge in the system. When the sump was cleaned it was found that the float cables were damaged. Both pumps failed an electrical test. The pumps need to be replaced. The directors of the Applicant were keen for the works to begin before any further damage could be done to the building.
7. There were also health and safety concerns about the foul waste backing up. This would occur soon as the pumps would not last much longer. The waste water specialists who were called to examine the pumps advised that the works needed to be done urgently as there could be flooding soon.
8. No objections to the application were received from any of the Respondents. There is no evidence of any prejudice suffered by them as a result of there having been no statutory consultation.
9. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statuto1y consultation requirements. This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.
3 Decision of the tribunal 10. s.20 of the Act provides for the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutory consultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250 can be recovered from a tenant in respect of such works unless the consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed with.
11. Dispensation is dealt with by s.20ZA of the Act which 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"
12. The Tribunal is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of this case, involving the necessary replacement of the pumps, it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of these works.
13. The Tribunal's determination is limited to this application for dispensation of consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Act.
Name:
[NAME]: 28 June 2022
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Repair Works Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Permits Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Allows Dispensation for Urgent Health and Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £5,508 Lift Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Allows Urgent Repairs Without Statutory Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation for London Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Wins Urgent Roof Repairs Case Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Without Conditio…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Over £250 in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation for Listed Mansion in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Boiler Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £31,354 Roof Repairs Dispensation for Listed Building
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 need for urgent repairs justifies dispensing with statutory consultation requirements.
- Urgent health and safety concerns allow bypassing statutory consultation requirements.
- Cases involving urgent repairs often allow skipping statutory consultations.
❌ 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 Tribunal allowed the dispensation of consultation requirements for urgent repairs involving faulty foul pumps in a residential block of flats.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the statutory consultation requirements could be dispensed with due to urgent health and safety concerns related to faulty foul pumps.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to allow the dispensation of consultation requirements because of the urgent health and safety concerns associated with the faulty foul pumps needing immediate replacement.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the urgency of the situation and the potential health and safety risks posed by the faulty foul pumps.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing the dispensation of consultation requirements.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also be able to obtain dispensation from statutory consultation requirements if there are urgent health and safety concerns.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the faulty foul pumps and the potential health and safety risks were critical to the decision.