First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof and Stair Works

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

1

Case Reference

: LON/00AG/LDC/2025/0979

LON/00AG/LDC/2025/0992

Property : 51 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant

: [redacted]

Respondents

: [redacted]

: Dispensation from statutory consultant requirements

Tribunal Member

: [NAME] of Decision

: 30 March 2026

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

The Tribunal grants the application for dispensation from statutory consultation in respect of the subject works, namely the roof repair works and stair works at the Property. The applicant should place a copy of this decision together with an explanation of the leaseholders’ appeal rights on its website (if any) within seven days of receipt and maintain it there for at least three months, with a sufficiently prominent link to both on its home page. It should also display copies in a prominent position in the common parts of the Property. FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

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 the reasonableness and/or the cost of the work. The Application 1) The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) for dispensation from consultation in respect of works that were required to the roof to remedy a leak into the Property and works required to the stairs. The works that were identified and required were: Roof works a) Remove existing felt roof. b) Install EPDM rubber roof. c) Fix any pointing around coping stones, d) Install leadwork around roof. e) New hopper and downpipe. f) Internally repair areas of damage. g) Internally prepare areas with damp sealants. h) Internally apply two coats of bathroom finish coat paint, Stair works i) Removal of existing carpet and installation of new carpet. j) Removal of the old rubber nosing and installation of new metal nosing. k) Installation of new coir matting and retaining bars.

2) The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003 provide that consultation requirements are triggered if the landlord plans to carry out qualifying works which would result in the contribution of any tenant being more than £250. The Applicant states that the cost of the works the subject of the application exceed this threshold. The roof works totalling £8,604 (actual costs were £9,576) and the stair works costing £3,500.

3) By directions dated 11 February 2026 (the “directions”) issued by the tribunal, they directed the Applicant to prepare a statement of case, provide reasoning for the application and provide any documentation the Applicant

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

3 wished to rely upon for the application. The tribunal also directed that the Applicant send each of the leaseholders the application, the tribunal’s directions, the Applicant’s statement of case and display the same in the common parts of the Property, confirming to the tribunal that it had done so. The Applicant confirmed to the tribunal on 20 February 2026 that it had complied with this direction.

4) The directions required any leaseholder who opposed, or positively supported, the application that they should tell the tribunal. If they opposed the application, they should send the tribunal and the applicant’s representative a statement responding to the application together with any documents they wished to rely on. The tribunal received an objection to the application from the leaseholder at Flat 6.

5) The directions provided that the tribunal would decide the matter on the basis of written submissions unless any party requested a hearing. No such request has been made. The Applicant’s case 6) The Applicant ([APPELLANT]) is the right to manage company for the Property and their representative is [APPELLANT]. The Applicant’s representative submitted two applications that were subsequently joined. Those applications explained that only limited consultation had taken place with the leaseholders due to the urgency of both sets of work.

7) The Applicant advised in their application that the main concern was further damage occurring due to a delay in the roof works should a consultation period be followed and health & safety concerns in relation to the stairs.

8) The Applicant also submitted two witness statements from [APPELLANT], the property manager from [NAME]. Whilst the Applicant acknowledges that the formal consultation process was not followed, directors of the RTM were fully aware of the works that were required. Once a majority decision had been taken by the RTM board, the works were subsequently instructed.

9) At the date of this decision the Tribunal are aware that both sets of works have now been completed.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

4 The Respondents’ case

10) The leaseholder at Flat 6 ([NAME]) lodged an objection with the Tribunal to the dispensation application on 5 March 2026.

11) The Respondent raised several points as to why the application should not be successful:

a) Procedural irregularity and lack of service The Respondent states that she did not receive copies of the application form via email, hand delivery or first-class post. This failure hindered her ability to respond within the original timeframe. b) Absence of urgency (stair works) As the proposed works consisted of carpet replacement with no structural damage being reported, this should not be considered urgent works. c) Unjustified delay and failure to consult (Flat 2 leak) The leak was initially reported in September 2024, yet repairs were not executed until February 2026. In an email the Respondent received on 1 October 2024, the managing agent acknowledged a s.20 consultation process was required. The Respondent states that this failure has deprived her of her statutory right to nominate a contractor or inspect the scope of works. The Respondent believes that this has resulted in higher costs than necessary. d) Incorrect apportionment and liability The Respondent states that their lease means they are not liable for internal redecorations or repairs to individual demised units. e) Inaccurate information The Respondent states that the application incorrectly identifies the Landlord.

Determination and Reasons 12) Section 20ZA(1) of the Act provides:

“Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation 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.”

13) The whole purpose of section 20ZA is to permit a landlord to dispense with the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Act if the tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable for them to be dispensed with.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

5 14) The Tribunal has taken account the decision in [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14 in reaching its decision.

15) There is no evidence before the tribunal that the Respondents were prejudiced by the failure of the Applicant to comply with the consultation requirements.

16) Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that there does appear to be a delay in works being undertaken in relation to the roof, there is no evidence before the Tribunal evidencing that the Respondents were prejudiced by this. The Tribunal is satisfied that the works were urgent in nature and that in the circumstances it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements.

17) With regards to the stair works, whilst the Respondent is correct that the works were not structural, this does not mean that they were not urgent in relation to a health and safety element. The Applicant submitted that the condition of the carpet had created a trip hazard which needed to be dealt with quickly. In addition, the Respondent has not demonstrated that they were prejudiced because of this.

18) Whilst the Applicant is not the landlord, they are the RTM responsible for carrying out works at the Property and managing the Property.

19) Whether the works are payable under the terms of the lease, or if the works have been carried out to a reasonable standard or at a reasonable cost are not matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the tribunal in relation to this present application. 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 the reasonableness, payability and /or cost of the works.

Chairman: [NAME]: 30 March 2026

APPEAL PROVISIONS

These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any request for full reasons should be made

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

6 within a month. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.