First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Necessary Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for necessary repairs to fix leaking issues in a mixed-use building. The repairs were carried out without objections from the a person.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord is entitled to dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements if the works are necessary and no a person has suffered prejudice.
📖 What the law says
The appropriate tribunal can grant permission to skip certain consultation requirements for building works if it believes it is reasonable to do so.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for necessary works to address leaking issues in a mixed-use building.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for works to clear the gulley and/or guttering to prevent further leaks into the second floor flat and terrace of a mixed-use building. The works were deemed necessary and no leaseholder objected.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AN/LDC/2024/0059 HMCTS code : P: PAPERREMOTE Property : 93 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [APPELLANT] : All the [NAME] of 93 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Type of application : Application to dispense with statutory consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members :
Judge [NAME], CEnvH Date of decision : 8th July 2024
DECISION
Description of hearing
This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the Applicant and not objected to by any Respondent. The form of the remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because no-one requested a hearing and all issues could be determined on paper.
2
Decision of the Tribunal
In this determination, statutory references relate to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 unless otherwise stated. (1) The Tribunal grants retrospective unconditional dispensation pursuant to s.20ZA in respect of works to clear the gulley and/or guttering so as to prevent further leaks into the second floor flat and terrace to the property at 93 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (the “Property”). These works were carried out by [COMPANY], costing £1,548.44 including VAT.
(2) This decision does not affect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction upon any future application to make a determination under section 27A of the Act in respect of liability to pay, for a reason other than non-consultation in respect of the subject works, and the reasonableness and/or cost of the subject works.
The Application
1. This Application under section 20ZA, is dated 14th February 2024, and seeks dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of the above-mentioned works required at the Property.
Background
2. The Applicant owns the freehold of the Property, which is managed by [COMPANY], its representatives in this application. The Respondents are all the leasehold owners of the premises within the Property.
3. The Property is a mixed-use building with commercial premises on the ground floor, and dwellings on the remaining floors.
4. The Application relates to works required to remedy leaks caused by defective guttering and gulley (the “Works”), resulting in leaks to some dwellings within the Property, in particular, the second floor flat and roof terrace.
5. As stated, the Application is dated 14th February 2024, containing the following grounds for dispensation:
There is a leak which is affecting the Second Floor Flat & [ADDRESS]. The work required were to carry out gully/space gutter clearance and also a sealant to be applied around the affected areas. This required [NAME].
6. The following day, 15th February 2024, [COMPANY] carried out the Works.
3 7. On 26th March 2024 the Applicant’s representatives e-mailed the Respondent [NAME] informing them the Works had been carried out, and that the Works were necessary for health and safety reasons. The Respondents were also informed the Applicant had made this Application to the Tribunal. There was one response to this e-mail from a [NAME] querying whether they needed to take any further action in connection with the notification received regarding the Works.
8. Following receipt of the Application, the Tribunal made a directions order dated 20th March 2024, including providing an opportunity for the Respondents to object to the Application.
9. There have been no objections to the Application.
The hearing
10. In making its decision, the Tribunal took into account the information provided by the Applicant by way of an indexed paginated bundle comprising 51 pages including the following documents: 10.1 The Application for dispensation; 10.2 The Tribunal’s directions order dated 20th March 2024; 10.3 A brief statement on behalf of the Applicant 10.4 [APPELLANT] invoice for the works dated 15th February 2024; 10.5 E-mail exchanges regarding the works between the Applicant’s representatives and [NAME]; 10.6 A sample lease.
The Legal Framework
11. So far as is relevant, section 20 states:
(1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsections (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation have been either-
(a) Complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) Except in the case of works to which section 20D applies, 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 payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works under the agreement.
(3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred or on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount.
4
12. Section 20ZA(1) continues:
Where an application 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 agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.
13. In [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14 the Supreme Court provided the following guidance when dealing with section 20ZA applications for dispensation of the statutory consultation requirements:
13.1 The purpose of sections 19 to 20ZA is to ensure [NAME] are not required to pay any more than is necessary for services provided, and that they are not required to pay for unnecessary or unsatisfactory services.
13.2 The Tribunal is to focus on the extent to which [NAME] have been prejudiced by a landlord’s failure to comply with the requirements under section 20.
13.3 Ordinarily, where the failure to comply with section 20 had not affected the extent, quality and costs of the works carried out, dispensation is more likely to be granted.
13.4 The Tribunal’s main focus on such applications is what prejudice, if any, have [NAME] suffered.
13.5 The [NAME] bear a factual burden of identifying some relevant prejudice that they would or might suffer.
13.6 Where [NAME] make a credible case regarding prejudice, the landlord bears the legal burden to rebut this.
13.7 If appropriate, the Tribunal may grant conditional dispensation.
The Tribunal’s Decision
14. The Tribunal reached its decision after considering the documents in the bundle, and taking into account its assessment of that evidence.
15. This determination does not refer to every matter raised, or every document the Tribunal reviewed or took into account in reaching its decision. However, this doesn't imply that any points raised or documents not specifically mentioned were disregarded. If a point or document was relevant to a specific issue, it was considered by the Tribunal.
5 16. The Tribunal grants dispensation pursuant to s.20ZA in respect of the Works at the Property carried out by [COMPANY], costing £1,548.44 including VAT.
The Tribunal’s Reasons
17. The Tribunal has had regard to the nature of the works and finds the works were necessary. The defective guttering and gulley were causing rainwater ingress affecting the Property. At that time of year, it was necessary to carry out works without delay, due to the risk of further rainwater damage.
18. The Tribunal takes into account that when [NAME] were notified about the Works and the Application, none objected. [NAME] were given an opportunity to raise enquiries, which the Applicant’s representative dealt with by e-mail.
19. Based on the Tribunal’s judgment and experience, we are satisfied that the cost of the works was no more than is necessary, particularly taking into account that two individuals were required to safely carry out the Works.
20. There is no evidence before the Tribunal indicating that the Applicant’s failure to comply with the section 20 requirements would affect the extent, quality, and cost of the works to be carried out.
21. By the directions order dated 20th March 2024, the [NAME] were afforded an opportunity to object to this application; none of the [NAME] have objected to the application. Therefore, the Tribunal proceeds on the basis that the [NAME] have no objections to the application, and that there has been no relevant prejudice to [NAME], who are likely to have objected to the application if there had been any prejudice.
22. For the reasons stated at paragraph 17 above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Works were required to the Property. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation from the consultation requirements. The Tribunal has borne in mind the Supreme Court decision in [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14. There is no evidence of any prejudice caused to the [NAME] and indeed none have raised an objection to the application. Dispensation is therefore granted from the statutory consultation requirements.
Name: Judge Tueje
Date: 8th July 2024
Rights of appeal
6 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 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).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Lift Repairs
- 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 Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Urgent Hot Water Repai…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Call System Upgrade: Dispensation Granted by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Building Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Heating and Hot Water Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Building Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs at Queens Court
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Due to Damp
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Boiler Replacement Works
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 were necessary to prevent further damage from rainwater entering the property.
- The urgency of the works was due to the risk of further rainwater damage at that time of year.
- The cost of the works was considered reasonable, especially because two people were needed to do the job safely.
- The leaseholders did not object to the application for dispensation, even after being notified and given a chance to inquire.
- There was no evidence that the landlord's failure to consult affected the scope, quality, or cost of the works.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided to grant dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for necessary repairs to address leaking issues.
Who was involved?
The landlord of a mixed-use building and the leaseholders of the property were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were necessary and no leaseholder objected to the repairs.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the works were necessary and no leaseholder suffered any prejudice.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also be able to obtain dispensation if their works are necessary and no leaseholder objects.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included the necessity of the works, the lack of objections from leaseholders, and the cost of the works.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.
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 statutory consultation requirements.
