First-tier Tribunal Allows Landlord to Skip Section 20 Consultation for Urgent Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to skip the section 20 consultation process for urgent repairs due to water damage. The repairs were necessary to prevent further damage to the property. This decision was made by Judge A M a person on 25 February 2022.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be exempted from the section 20 consultation procedure if the work is urgent and necessary to prevent significant damage.
📖 What the law says
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 20ZA allows a tribunal to grant exemption from consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to the obligations placed on landlords to consult tenants regarding proposed works or agreements.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from the section 20 consultation procedure due to urgent repairs needed for water damage.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from the section 20 consultation procedure for a landlord to carry out urgent repairs due to water damage to flats. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent significant damage to the property. The decision was made by Judge A M Davies on 25 February 2022.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00EQ/LDC/2021/0051
Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicants : [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] : Section 20ZA, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Tribunal Members : [APPELLANT], LLB
J [NAME], MRICS
Date of Determination : 15 February 2022
Date of Decision : 25 February 2022
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022
2
DECISION
The consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 are dispensed with in relation to (a) Investigating the cause of water damage to flats 13 and [ADDRESS]; and (b) consequent work on the balconies of flats 26 and 27; carried out by [COMPANY] in April and May 2021 at a cost of £17,198.08.
REASONS
BACKGROUND
1. The Applicant is the registered proprietor of [ADDRESS] (“the Property”) and landlord of the residential flats in the building. In or about 2020 the leaseholders informed the Applicant that water leaks were damaging the interior of the Property.
2. A report on the source of the leaks, and also on the condition of the flat roofs of the Property, was commissioned from [NAME], who reported on 8 January 2021. The consultants recommended that investigative work be carried out to the balconies of flats 26 and 27 to establish the cause of leaks at flats 13 and 16. Flat 13 in particular was badly damaged: part of the ceiling collapsed and the flat became uninhabitable.
3. On 21 April 2021 the Applicant started a consultation procedure as required by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”). The initial notice referred to the works to be carried out as “Balcony exposing/investigations following leaks”. At about the same time the Applicant obtained quotations for the investigation from [COMPANY] and [COMPANY]. [COMPANY]’ undated estimate quoted £9,000 plus VAT. Rescom’s estimate was not produced to the Tribunal, but on 28 April 2021 they invoiced £8,000 plus VAT for the same work.
4. Given the extreme nature of the damage to flat 13, the Applicant abandoned the section 20 procedure and instructed [COMPANY] to carry out the work at once. The investigation established that there was a defect in the system for removing rainwater from the balconies, and rectification work was subsequently carried out by the same company.
THE LEASE
5. The leases of flats in the Property create a term of 250 years from 1 January 2017. They provide for leaseholders to pay, through a service charge, for the Services provided by the Applicant.
3
6. Services are defined at Schedule 7 Part 1, and include “…repairing and replacing the Retained Parts”. The Retained Parts amount to all parts of the Property other than the demised flats and include the structure of the balconies, including everything below the floor surface.
THE LAW
7. Section 20 of the Act obliges a landlord to carry out a consultation exercise prior to committing to, among other things, any work that will cost a leaseholder more than £250. Part 2 of the Service Charges (Consultation etc)(England) Regulations 2003 provides further detail as to the consultation procedure. However, section 20ZA permits a landlord to apply to this Tribunal for a determination permitting the landlord to dispense with the procedure if the Tribunal “is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”.
8. In [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14 the Supreme Court provided guidance as to when dispensation would be reasonable. The matters to be considered were (1) would leaseholders suffer any prejudice if the landlord failed to consult? (2) relevant prejudice would normally be either having to pay for inappropriate works, or paying too much for the work; (3) had the leaseholders shown that they would suffer some relevant prejudice, and what they would have done to avoid such prejudice had the usual consultation taken place?
The court also made it clear that dispensation may be granted conditionally by the Tribunal.
DETERMINATION
9. The application has been determined without a hearing, on the basis of written representations of the parties.
10. The Tribunal has been provided with correspondence from one of the leaseholders, Ms [NAME] of flat 18. Ms [NAME] queries why insurance cover was not available for the work, given that the Property was converted for residential use in or about 2017. She has also asked for clarification as to the extent of the dispensation, given that a considerable amount of further work on the Retained Parks is likely to be needed.
11. Ms [NAME] has not sought to show that she or other leaseholders have been prejudiced by their inability to respond to a section 20 consultation procedure, i.e. that their responses to that procedure, if taken into account by the Applicant, would have resulted in any difference to the works or the cost of them.
4
12. The Applicant has shown that the [NAME] were approached and that they claimed that the work was not covered by the buildings insurance policy. The Tribunal has no evidence that other claims could or should have been investigated, for example in relation to the design or construction of the balconies.
13. As the repair works had become urgent due to the serious damage being caused to the interior of the building, dispensation from the section 20 consultation procedure is granted. The leaseholders’ respective contributions to the cost of the work are not limited by section 20 to £250.
14. It should be noted that this decision does not preclude an application under section 27A of the Act as to whether the work was carried out to a reasonable standard or at a reasonable cost, or whether the cost is properly included in the service charge payable by the leaseholders.
[NAME] Tribunal Judge 25 February 2022
5
Annex A
Leaseholders
Mr [NAME] [NAME] Mr [NAME] Ms [NAME] Mr [COMPANY]. Mr [NAME] Ms [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Ms [NAME] Ms [NAME] Mr [NAME] Ms [NAME] Ms Rl [NAME] Ms [NAME] Mr & Mrs [NAME] Ms [NAME] Ms [NAME] Ms [NAME] Ms [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr & Mrs [NAME] Mr & Mrs [NAME] Ms [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Ms [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Fire Alarm System Cost in Service Charge
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Unreasonable Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Management Fees and Declares Some Service Charges Unpayabl…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs at Grimshaw…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Repayment Orders Granted to Tenants in Unlicensed HMO
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charge Payable: First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Bypass of Consultation for Urgent Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant wins reduction in administration charge for lease assignment
- 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 Roof 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 work is urgent and necessary to prevent significant damage.
- The works pose significant safety risks.
- The works are urgent and necessary.
- It is reasonable to dispense the landlord from consultation requirements.
- Leaseholders will not be prejudiced by the exemption.
❌ 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 Tribunal allowed the landlord to skip the section 20 consultation process for urgent repairs due to water damage.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the leaseholders were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord could skip the consultation process because the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent significant damage.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent significant damage to the property.
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 skip the section 20 consultation process if the repairs are urgent and necessary to prevent significant damage.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the urgency and necessity of the repairs mattered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.
