Southern Land Securities LimitedApplicantThe long leaseholders as per the schedule attached to the applicationRespondent
Before
Judge TagliaviniTogether Property Management for the ApplicantN/A Application under s.20ZA Landlord and for the RespondentVenue 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LRDate 2 June 2026Property: Surrey SM6 0NNType of application: Tenant Act 1985 – dispensation from consultation
DECISION
The tribunal’s decision (1) The tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought by the applicant in respect of the works required, which included a CCTV inspection and drainage works by Diamond Drains Ltd to eradicate a rat infestation in the sums of £630.00 (including VAT) and £2,220.00 (including VAT). _____________________________________________________ Background[1]The applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of a rat infestation at 20 & 20a Woodcote Road, Wallington, Surrey SM6 0NN (‘the property’.)[2]The subject property is a building converted into residential units. The works were said to be urgent because: We were made aware by the resident of a rat infestation affecting the property. Following the report, a CCTV survey of the drainage system was instructed in order to investigate the source of the issue. The CCTV drainage report confirmed that one-way valves were required to be installed within the drainage system to prevent rodent access into the building. Upon receipt of the report, approval was given for the necessary drainage works to proceed in order to eradicate the rat infestation and resolve the issue permanently. Due to the severe bad odour emanating from the drainage system, the resident was unable to comfortably remain in occupation of the property and therefore had to temporarily move out until the drainage works were completed and the flat had been properly ventilated throughout. As an interim measure, access points within the resident’s toilet area were blocked off to prevent further bad odour entering the property and to restrict access for the rats into the flat. No objections were received in relation to the proposed drainage and remedial works. Since completion of the works, no further reports of rat infestation or related issues have been received.[3]No consultation was carried out with the leaseholders. The hearing[4]The applicant confirmed to the tribunal the leaseholders were provided with a copy of the application and the tribunal’s Directions. Neither party requested a hearing and the application was determined on the papers provided, which a digital bundle of 91 pages.[5]Although no responses were received by the tribunal from the leaseholders, the applicant provided correspondence from Ms Rogers a leaseholder who disputed the urgency of the works and the absence of interim or temporary measures. In written correspondence to she applicant stated she required:[1]Evidence supporting the assertion of urgency, including a surveyor, pest control, environmental health or risk assessment reports relied upon in concluding that it was a 'serious rat infestation', that this was 'affecting the building' and why it was deemed impracticable to undertake even a truncated or phased consultation process.[2]A clear timeline setting out: when the rat infestation was first reported or identified, what investigations or remedial actions were taken prior to the works referenced in your email, when the decision was taken that immediate works were required.[3]An explanation as to why all leaseholders were not made aware of the upcoming works taking place if it was 'serious' and 'affected the building' and needed to be done to 'protect residents' health and safety'.[4]Further details regarding the claim that a resident was required to vacate their property, including whether this outcome was directly attributable to any delay in addressing the issue. The resident is still yet to move into their property therefore these works did not solve their problem and that claim is unwarranted.[5]An explanation as to why interim or temporary measures (for example, pest control treatments or limited works) were not considered sufficient to allow compliance with the Section 20 consultation requirements.[6]A cost breakdown and justification for the valve installation (£2,220.00) and the CCTV drain survey (£630.00), including details of how contractors were selected, whether alternative quotations were sought and why these particular works were considered necessary and proportionate at that stage.[6]The applicant responded to this enquiry in an email dated 6 February 2026 and stated that: …The first report of rat’s infestation/foul smell was received on 27/08/2025. The report confirms that the smell was of dead rats/mice in the building and the smell is unbearable with the resident confirming she cannot stay at the property. We subsequently instructed a pest control company on 28th of August 2025 to attend the property to investigate the reports further and a drainage team was instructed on the same day to undertake a CCTV survey of the drains. I enclose a copy of the CCTV survey for your files along with a copy of the pest control company report. Rat infestations pose serious and immediate risks to health, safety, and property. Rats are known carriers of diseases, contaminate food and living areas with droppings and urine, and can cause significant damage by gnawing on electrical wiring, insulation, and structural materials. The longer the infestation remains untreated, the greater the risk of property damage, fire hazards, and health-related concerns for occupants. Additionally, rat populations grow rapidly. Delaying treatment for several months will likely allow the infestation to worsen, making eventual remediation more complex, more disruptive, and more costly than addressing it promptly, therefore it was decided that we bypass the Section 20 process and we apply to the First Tier Tribunal to dispense from Section 20 at later date. Early intervention is critical to prevent escalation and to ensure the environment remains safe and habitable. Residents were asked on 28th of August 2028 to confirm whether they were experiencing issues related to the rat infestation. While only one or two flats formally reported the problem, this does not negate the seriousness of the situation. A resident was required to move out due to the severity of the infestation and the associated health and safety concerns. This action was taken as a precautionary measure and was not a factor that prevented or postponed the commencement or completion of pest control treatment. The infestation issues existed independently of the resident’s occupancy status and required professional intervention regardless. Interim or temporary measures were not considered sufficient to allow compliance with the Section 20 consultation requirements due to the severity and active nature of the rat infestation. Furthermore, implementing interim measures would have required repeated treatments over an extended period, during which time the risks to occupants and the property would have remained. This would not have been an appropriate or responsible approach given the urgency of the situation and the rapid rate at which rat infestations can escalate. In these circumstances, immediate and comprehensive treatment was necessary to fully eradicate the infestation and prevent further harm. Delaying full remedial works in order to carry out temporary measures solely to meet consultation timescales would have exposed residents to ongoing risk and increased the likelihood of more extensive damage. Due to the urgency of the situation, priority was given to securing immediate professional intervention from a qualified pest control and a drainage provider who were able to attend promptly. In these circumstances, it was neither practical nor responsible to delay necessary works while awaiting additional quotes. We are continuing to bait the affected areas for rats, and we believe that the works undertaken to date have helped to alleviate the problem.[7]The tribunal finds the primary concern of the leaseholder was to need and cost of the works. However, the tribunal is satisfied the works were urgently required as a matter of health and safety. The tribunal also finds the leaseholder has failed to demonstrate that any substantive prejudice has or will be caused by the grant of dispensation; Daejan Investment Ltd v Benson & others [2013] UKSC 14 & [2013] UKSC 54.[8]The cost of the works is not relevant to this application and the tribunal’s Directions expressly stated that: This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable…[9]It is for the respondents, not the tribunal, to demonstrate the leaseholders will be caused substantial prejudice by the dispensation from consultation. The reasonableness and payability of the cost of these works can be challenged by the respond leaseholders in due course, should they choose to make the appropriate application.[10]Therefore, the tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought by the applicant. Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 2 June 2026 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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The application should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).