Tribunal Grants Urgent Boiler Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a Resident Management Company to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent repairs to communal boilers at a property in London. The repairs were necessary because the boilers were damaged beyond repair.
⚖️ Legal holding
It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements where there is an urgent need for works.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant an application to waive consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent boiler repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted an application for dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent works to communal boilers at a property in London. The works were deemed necessary due to severe corrosion and leaks in the existing boilers.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/LDC/2021/0243 HMCTS code : P: PAPER REMOTE Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Limited Representative : [NAME] ([NAME])
Respondents : [redacted] Type of [NAME] : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :
Judge Robert Latham
Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 9 November 2021
DECISION
The Tribunal grants this [NAME] to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 without condition in respect of urgent works to the communal boilers.
2 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPER REMOTE. The Directions provided for the [NAME] to be determined on the papers unless any party requested a hearing. No party has requested a hearing. The applicant has filed a bundle in in support of the [NAME]. The [NAME]
1. On 29 September 2021, the Tribunal received an [NAME] from the [NAME] Association Limited (“the Applicant”) seeking dispensation from of the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”). The [NAME] relates to [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“the Property”). This is a 1930’s block of 32 purpose built flats with a communal hating and hot water system.
2. The Applicant states that the emergency started in August when a gas leak occurred on the incoming gas main within the meter compartment which required, amongst other things, replacement of the governor. Flue gas emissions comprising carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide were discovered being emitted from the boiler heat exchanger compartments into the boiler room. Further investigation noted severely corroded burner components and leaking heat exchangers, all of which necessitated the two boilers being shut down. [NAME] were left without adequate hot water. The two boilers were damaged beyond repair and needed to be replaced immediately. The lack of hot water was exacerbated by the hot water plate heat exchanger which also needed to be upgraded. Other ancillary works including adaptations to the flues also needed to be carried out at the same time.
3. The Applicant has sent regular updates sent to [NAME] regarding the lack of hot water. When the complete replacement of two boilers was identified as being required and a quotation obtained, a detailed explanation was sent to the [NAME], dated 13 September 2021, together with a demand for their share of the cost of the works. An independent consultant engineer has confirmed that the costs are reasonable. The estimated cost of the works for the two initial boilers is £63,237, with an additional £28,000 for a third boiler.
4. The Freehold is owned by a Resident Management Company and the Board of Directors have liaised with the Managing Agents ([NAME]) throughout and have instructed the works to proceed without delay.
3
5. On 23 September, the Tribunal issued Directions. The Tribunal stated that it would determine the [NAME] on the papers, unless any party requested an oral hearing. No party has done so.
6. By 30 September, the Applicant was directed to send to each of the [NAME] (and any residential sublessees) by email, hand delivery or first-class post: (i) copies of the [NAME] form (excluding any list of respondents’ names and addresses) unless also sent by the Applicant; (ii) if not already detailed in the [NAME] form, a brief explanation for the reasons for the [NAME] and (iii) a copy of the directions. The Applicant was also directed to display a copy in a prominent position in the common parts of the Property.
7. On 29 September, the Applicant confirmed that it had complied with this Direction.
8. By 14 October, any [NAME] who opposed the [NAME] was directed to complete a Reply Form which was attached to the Directions and email it both to the Tribunal and to the Applicant. The [NAME] was further directed to send the applicant a statement in response to the [NAME]. No [NAME] has returned a completed Reply Form opposing the [NAME].
9. On 29 October, the Applicant emailed the tribunal a bundle of documents in support of their [NAME]. The bundle includes a copy of sample leases dated 1975 and 2009 for Flat 11.
10. Section 20ZA (1) of the Act provides: “Where an [NAME] 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.”
11. The only issue which this Tribunal has been required to determine is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.
12. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements. This is justified by the urgent need for the works. There is no suggestion that any prejudice has arisen. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant dispensation without any conditions.
4 13. The Directions make provision for the service of the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal will email a copy of its decision to the Applicant. The Applicant is responsible for serving a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on all [NAME].
Judge Robert Latham 9 November 2021
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 [NAME] for permission must be made by e-mail to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Automatic Gates Installation Dispensed With Due to Urgent Need
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Retrospective Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Water Pump Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Major Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Works Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Boiler Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repair 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
- The presence of an urgent need for works allows the court to bypass statutory consultation requirements.
- Courts consider the necessity of urgent works as a valid reason to waive consultation requirements.
- When there is an urgent need for works, courts find it reasonable to dispense with statutory consultation.
❌ 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 decision allowed the Resident Management Company to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent repairs to communal boilers.
Who was involved?
The Resident Management Company and the leaseholders of the property were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the application because the works were urgent and necessary to ensure the safety and comfort of the residents.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The court applied section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the urgent need for the repairs to ensure the safety and comfort of the residents.
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 be able to bypass the usual consultation process if the works are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the urgent need for the repairs, including the condition of the boilers and the impact on residents, was 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 always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property management and repairs.
