Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Foul Drainage Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for urgent foul drainage repairs. The Tribunal found the repairs necessary and urgent, and no objections were raised by the leaseholders.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the Tribunal deems it reasonable to do so.
📖 What the law says
The Tribunal can grant an exemption from 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 estimators, considering tenant observations, 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 foul drainage repair works.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent foul drainage repair works in a residential property. The Tribunal accepted the need for urgent repairs and found no relevant prejudice suffered by the respondents.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AX/LDC/2025/0846 Applicant: [redacted] : 102 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Representative : [RESPONDENT]
Respondent : [redacted] the attached Schedule
Representatives : None Type of Application : Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 20ZA Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] [NAME] of Decision : 4 March 2026
DECISION
2 Decision
1. The application for dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of foul drainage repair works is GRANTED unconditionally. The relevant works are set out on an invoice from [COMPANY] dated 31 March 2025 for £1,428.
2. However, the Tribunal makes no finding as to the reasonableness or payability of these costs, which falls outside the scope of this application.
Reasons
The Applicant’s Case
3. This applicant stated: “Drainage clearance works were required as a matter of urgency. As such, the costs exceeded the permitted threshold for Service Charge Maintenance, and1 `1` therefore require Dispensation. All parties have been notified following the completion of the works. … As the Managing Agent for the development, we were informed of the sewage drain overflowing …. We therefore urgently arranged a drainage contractor to attend the site to investigate and resolve the issue due to the concern of it relating to the Health & Safety of the residents. When the contractor arrived on site, they established that tree roots had damaged the drainage system and therefore the solution to resolve was to sever the roots. Due to the property consisting of only 3 dwellings, the cost of the labour and materials exceeded the S20 threshold. We deemed the works to be urgent as the drains were overflowing, which could cause further damage to communal areas as well as health concerns to the residents.”
4. Photographs were supplied together with details of the work carried out by the contractor. An invoice from Wrestore for £1,428 dated 31 March 2025 was provided.
Directions
5. Directions were issued on 16 September 2025 that the matter be dealt with by written representations, unless any party made a request for an oral hearing, which no one did. The directions required that the application be sent to lessees, with the directions and publicity to be given to the application in the block. Leaseholders opposing the application were required to complete a Reply Form and send it to the applicant and Tribunal. The applicant was required to prepare and serve an indexed and paginated bundle. The applicant was required to serve this on the Tribunal and only those lessees who had served a Reply Form. The applicant confirmed by that the application and directions had been sent to all lessees and publicity given in the common parts.
3
The Property
6. From the application form, the property is described as a mansion converted into three dwellings.
The Leases
7. The Tribunal was supplied with a sample lease. However, the Tribunal makes no finding as to payability or reasonableness of the costs to be incurred as that is outside the scope of this application.
The Respondents’ Cases
8. There were no objectors.
The Law
8. Section 20ZA is set out in the appendix to this decision. The Tribunal has discretion to grant dispensation when it considers it reasonable to do so. In addition, the Supreme Court Judgment in [COMPANY] v [NAME] and Others [2013] UKSC 14 empowers the Tribunal to grant dispensation on terms or subject to conditions. In Daejan at para 46 stated “The Requirements are a means to an end, not an end in themselves, and the end to which they are directed is the protection of tenants in relation to service charges, to the extent identified above. …the Requirements leave untouched the fact that it is the landlord who decides what work needs to be done, when they are to be done, who they are to be done by, and what amount is to be paid for them.”
9. In Daejan, Lord [NAME] also said the consultation requirements have to be considered alongside section 19 and section 27A of the Act. Those provisions limit recoverable service charges to costs reasonably incurred for works of a reasonable standard.
Findings
10. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s case that there was an urgent need to carry out the repairs to foul drainage. There were no objections to the application. The Tribunal has not identified any relevant prejudice suffered by the respondents as a result of the failure to consult.
4
11. For the above reasons, the Tribunal grants dispensation unconditionally, in relation to the works referenced in the application.
Mr [NAME]
4 March 2026 Valuer Chairman
ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL
The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its decisions by virtue of the rule 36 (2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below.
If a party wishes to appeal against 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 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.
Schedule of Respondents
Mr [NAME] [APPELLANT]
[NAME] & Ms [APPELLANT]
Mr S [APPELLANT] & [NAME]
5 Appendix
Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (1)Where an application is made to [the appropriate 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. (2)In section 20 and this section— “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months. (3)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a)if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b)in any circumstances so prescribed. (4)In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5)Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord— (a)to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants’ association representing them, (b)to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c)to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d)to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e)to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements. (6)Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a)may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b)may make different provision for different purposes.
6 (7)Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Landlord to Skip Consultation for 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 Urgent Environmental Work
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Building Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Balcony Replacement Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation From Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation from Consultation Requirem…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
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 works are urgent and necessary.
- No prejudice is caused to the tenants.
- The Tribunal finds it reasonable to dispense from consultation requirements.
- The circumstances justify the reasonableness of dispensing from consultation requirements.
- Urgent works need to be carried out.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent foul drainage repair works.
Who was involved?
The landlord and leaseholders of a residential property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were deemed urgent and necessary, and no objections were raised.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically Section 20ZA.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the repairs were urgent and necessary, and that no leaseholder objected to the application.
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 be able to bypass consultation requirements if their repairs are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the damage, details of the work carried out, and an invoice for the repair costs.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
