VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Emergency Repairs Can Bypass Consultation Requirements

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to make emergency repairs to a tenant's roof without consulting the tenant first. This was because the repairs were necessary to prevent further damage and the tenants did not object.

⚖️ Legal holding

Emergency repairs to a property can be exempt from consultation requirements under certain conditions.

Topics

emergency repairsconsultation requirements

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZALandlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section outlines the conditions under which a tribunal can grant an exemption from consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements. Specifically, the tribunal may determine to dispense with these requirements if it is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for emergency repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for emergency repairs to a property's flat roof. The decision was based on the lack of prejudice to the tenants and the urgent need for the repairs.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : LON/00BH/LDC/2019/0193 Property : 93 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] :

[APPELLANT]

Respondents :

[redacted] (2)Ms [COUNSEL] [NAME] : N/A

Types of Application : Section 20ZA - dispensation Tribunal Members :

Judge [NAME] and venue of hearing

: 3 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision

: 3 February 2020

DECISION _____________________________________________________________________

2

Decisions of the tribunal

I. The tribunal grants the Applicant dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the works to remedy the water penetration from the rear flat roof as specified in the quotation of [NAME] (Roofing).

_________________________________________________

The application

1. This is an application made under the provisions of s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 seeking the tribunal’s dispensation of the consultation requirements under section 20 of that Act.

The premises

2. The premises comprise a terraced house converted into two flats set over two floors.

The hearing

3. As the parties did not request an oral hearing the tribunal determined this matter on the bundle of documents provided by the Applicant.

The Applicant’s evidence

3. In its application the Applicant stated that works had been carried out to the rear flat roof of the property in order to address the ongoing water penetration that was causing damage to the flat. Consequently, a quotation had been obtained on 11 September 2019 from [NAME] (Roofing), setting out the works required to remedy the water penetration in the sum of £1250. On 30 September 2019 the Applicant’s agent ([NAME]) authorised the carrying out of these works as an alternative contractor requested to provide a quotation had failed to do so.

4. In letters dated 27 September 2019 from the landlord’s agents, notification of these works was given to the Respondent tenants. By a letter dated 12 November 2019 from the tribunal the Respondents were notified of this application for dispensation.

The Respondent’s evidence

5. Neither Respondent contacted the tribunal to register any opposition or agreement to this application.

3

The tribunal’s decisions and reasons

6. The tribunal has considered the nature and extent of the works carried out and is satisfied from the Applicant’s evidence, that these works were required as a matter of emergency. The tribunal is also satisfied that there has been no prejudice identified by the Respondents as having been caused to them by the lack of consultation usually required by the 1985 Act.

7. Therefore, the tribunal grants the application and dispenses with the consultation requirements for the works to the flat roof of the subject premises.

Signed: Judge Tagliavini

Dated: 3 February 2020

Rights of Appeal

1. 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 this case.

2. 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.

3. 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 each reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. 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.

4

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:

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 to prevent damage.
  • The landlord satisfies the conditions for exemption from consultation requirements.
  • The tenant is entitled to purchase the freehold interest due to the landlord's unavailability.
  • The claimant meets the statutory requirements to exercise the right to manage premises.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent reduction due to the property's poor condition.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided that the landlord could make emergency repairs to the roof without consulting the tenants first.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the landlord could make the repairs because they were deemed necessary and the tenants did not object.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20ZA and 20 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the repairs were necessary and the tenants did not suffer any prejudice.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be able to make emergency repairs without consulting their tenants if the repairs are necessary and the tenants do not object.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the necessity of the repairs and the lack of objection from the tenants 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?

Yes, it is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving landlord-tenant disputes.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.