VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Allows Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided to waive the requirement for landlords to consult a person before starting urgent repairs on the roof of a property. This decision was made because there was no objection from the a person and the repairs were deemed necessary to prevent further water damage.

⚖️ Legal holding

It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements where there is urgent need for repairs and no prejudice to a person.

Topics

statutory consultation requirementsroof repairsdispensation

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can decide to waive the consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to consult with tenants or recognized tenants' associations before making changes.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal allowed the dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined that the statutory consultation requirements could be dispensed with for urgent repairs to the roof of a property, as there was no opposition from leaseholders and no indication of prejudice to their interests.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AH/LDC/2023/0076 Property : [NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. Applicant : [redacted] : [COUNSEL] – [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] : Not Represented Type of [NAME] : For the determination of an [NAME] for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements Tribunal Members : Judge S.J. Walker Date and venue of Hearing : Decided on the Papers Date of Decision : 18 June 2024

DECISION

Decision of the Tribunal

The Tribunal determines that the statutory consultation requirements shall be dispensed with in respect of works to the roof of [NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].

2 Reasons The [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) dispensing with the statutory consultation requirements which apply by virtue of section 20 of the 1985 Act in respect of repair works to the roof of [NAME], [ADDRESS], Croydon and incidental scaffolding provision.

2. The [NAME] was made on 16 May 2023 and stated that it was being made because reports had been received of a hole in the ceiling to flat 18C and significant water ingress. Roofing contractors have been consulted and have advised that there is damage to the roof leading to water penetration.

3. Directions were made on 9 June 2023. They required the Applicant to send copies of the [NAME] and the directions to the [NAME] and to display a copy of them in a prominent place in the common parts of the property. The Tribunal is satisfied that this was done.

4. The directions provided that those [NAME] who opposed the [NAME] were to complete a reply form and return it to the Tribunal by 28 July 2023.

5. The directions further provided that the [NAME] would be determined on the papers in the week commencing 4 September 2023 unless by 25 August 2023 any party requested a hearing.

6. The Tribunal has received no objections or correspondence from any of the Respondents and no request for an oral hearing has been received.

7. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondents have been given notice of the [NAME] and how to object to it and that they have been given notice that it is intended to deal with the [NAME] without a hearing. In the absence of any such request this determination is made on the papers which have been provided by the parties pursuant to rule 31(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First- tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

8. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the Appendix to this decision.

9. Neither party requested an inspection, and the Tribunal did not consider that one was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute.

10. The applicant prepared a bundle consisting of 64 electronically numbered pages. References to page numbers throughout this decision are to the electronic page numbers of this bundle.

3 The Background 11. The property comprises a purpose-built mixed tenure block of five flats situated above three ground floor office units. The Lease 12. No evidence of title was produced. However, no issue has been raised as to the right of the Applicant to make this [NAME].

13. Copies of relevant leases were provided to the Tribunal, which was satisfied that they included the usual obligations on the tenants to pay a contribution towards the expenses incurred by the landlord in performing its obligations under the lease. Those obligations include an obligation to keep the structure of the property in repair. The Issues 14. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. The Tribunal is not concerned with the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

The Applicant’s Case 15. The Applicant’s case is set out in the [NAME] form at pages 9 and 10. Their case is that repairs are urgently required to the roof above flat 18C as the bedroom of that flat is unusable due to water ingress. The only way to access the roof to carry out the necessary repairs is by the erection of scaffolding. Contractors were instructed, who provided a quotation for the works. Because of the necessity of erecting scaffolding, the amount of the quotation, which totalled £6,945 plus VAT (page 13), exceeded the threshold above which consultation would be necessary. The Respondents were informed of the situation and the landlord’s intention to make this [NAME]. The Respondents’ Case 16. As previously explained, no objections have been received from any [NAME]. The Tribunal’s Decision 17. The Tribunal is satisfied that the consultation requirements should be dispensed with. It is satisfied that in view of the identified damage to the roof it is appropriate to carry out the identified remedial works and that it is appropriate to grant a dispensation.

18. The Tribunal is satisfied that the [NAME] have been notified of the [NAME] and bears in mind that there has been no objection from any of them to it. It also bears in mind the limited scope of the issue before it. The purpose of the consultation requirements is to protect tenants from paying for inappropriate works and from paying more than would be appropriate for such works. It follows that the issue when considering dispensation is the extent to which the tenants are prejudiced as regards these two protections. There is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that the [NAME] would suffer any prejudice if this [NAME] were granted.

4 19. In all the circumstances the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements. Name: Judge S.J. Walker Date:

18 June 2024

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 [NAME] for permission must be made 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.

Appendix of relevant legislation

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 18 (1) In the following provisions of this Act "service charge" means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent - (a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or the landlord's costs of management, and (b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs.

5 (2) The relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a [NAME], in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable. (3) For this purpose - (a) "costs" includes overheads, and (b) costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period. Section 19 (1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period - (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provisions of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly. (2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise Section 20 (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate Tribunal . (2) In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement. (3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount.

6 (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount. (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.] Section 20ZA (1) 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. (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 [NAME], 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 [COMPANY] representing them,

(b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements,

7

(c) to invite tenants or the [COMPANY] 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 [COMPANY] 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.

(7) Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument 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:

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

  • There is an urgent need for repairs.
  • No prejudice to leaseholders.
  • Works are necessary to ensure health and safety standards.
  • Leaseholders have been adequately notified.
  • No objections from leaseholders.

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 from statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, and various leaseholders were potentially affected.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation because the repairs were urgent and there was no objection from the leaseholders.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1s. 20ZA was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency of the repairs and the lack of any objections from the leaseholders.

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 might be able to get dispensation from consultation requirements if the repairs are urgent and there are no objections from leaseholders.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgent need for repairs and the lack of objections from leaseholders 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?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.

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.