First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00CG/LDC/2025/0707

Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted]

:

[COMPANY]

Respondents

:

[redacted] Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA – Dispensation of Consultation Requirements

Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME] [NAME], FRICS, Valuer Member

Date of Decision : 22nd May 2026

DECISION

1. The requirement to consult with the respondents in accordance with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is dispensed with, pursuant to section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the remedial works to the roof of the property identified in the documents “Contract Instruction No.1” dated 8th October 2025 and “Contract Instruction No.2” issued on 10th November 2025, both by [NAME] and Building Consultancy, associated work undertaken by [COMPANY], and additional lightning conductor tape.

REASONS

Preliminary Matters 1. This application is made for dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’).

2. The only issue for the Tribunal to consider is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements.

3. The Applicant in the application notice agreed to the appeal being considered on the papers without an oral hearing. There has been no response to the application from the Respondents. Having reviewed the written evidence and noted the Applicant’s consent, and the absence of any objection from the Respondents, the Tribunal concluded pursuant to Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 that it is able to decide the matter without a hearing.

4. In accordance with the ‘Practice Direction from the Senior President of Tribunals: Reasons for decisions’, this decision refers only to the main issues and evidence in dispute, and how those issues essential to the Tribunal’s conclusions have been resolved. Background to the application 5. The Applicant is the freeholder of the Property and has applied pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), and by way of an application notice dated 27th November 2025, for dispensation of consultation requirements provided for by section 20 LTA 1985. The application is in respect of works to the roof of the property.

6. The Property is described in the application as comprising a purpose-built block of flats containing 64 residential apartments, a commercial unit, and an underground car park. The application states that the building incorporates multiple flat roofs and apex roof sections. The application states that all apartments within the Premises are held under long residential leases.

7. The Respondents to the application are the long leaseholders of the Property, and are liable for service charges pursuant to the long leases. Details of the long leaseholders are set out in a Schedule to the application.

8. A sample lease has been submitted (the lease for Flat 37 (PR31) [ADDRESS], Sheffield) that sets out the parties’ respective obligations in respect of repairs and service charge liabilities.

9. The Applicant seeks dispensation on the following basis – “A Section 20 consultation has been carried out for [ADDRESS] due to significant water ingress affecting both the penthouse apartment and the communal areas, resulting in Apartment 19 becoming uninhabitable. During the works, when the roof covering was lifted, the contractor identified extensive timber

rot above the communal areas and around the loft hatch. These latent defects required immediate instruction to prevent further deterioration and ensure the safety and integrity of the building. As these issues could not have been identified prior to opening up the roof, the additional remedial works resulted in the overall project costs exceeding the amount originally stated in the Notice of Estimates. Additionally following an inspection by [NAME] additional lightning conductor tape is required due to the roof area differing and estimate 80-100 meter required, the original tender only included like for like”.

10. The additional costs of the works is stated to be £12,200.70 in excess of the amounts stated for the works specified in the Notice of Estimates (the figure for those original works being £82,459.21.

Issues 11. The following issues were identified for determination by the Tribunal: a. Should the Tribunal permit the statutory consultation requirements under section 20 LTA 1985 in relation to works to be dispensed with in accordance with section 20ZA LTA 1985? The Law 12. Extracts from sections 20 and 20ZA of the Act are reproduced in Schedule 1, below. Section 20ZA subsection (1) provides that the tribunal may make a determination to dispense with consultation requirements “if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”.

13. The Tribunal has had regard to the guidance on dispensation given by the Supreme Court in [COMPANY] v [NAME] and Others [2013] UKSC 14 (‘[NAME]), in particular, that in deciding pursuant to section 20ZA whether it is reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements, a Tribunal should consider whether any relevant prejudice would be suffered by the leaseholders.

14. The Tribunal note that whilst the legal burden of proof rests throughout on the landlord, the factual burden of identifying some relevant prejudice that they would or might have suffered rested on the tenants, and that a Tribunal is permitted, subject to evidence, to grant dispensation on terms, including compensating leaseholders for any prejudice suffered by requiring a landlord to reduce the amount claimed as service charge, and including an order for costs. Evidence 15. The material/evidence submitted by the Applicant is [COMPANY] to: a. The application for dispensation dated 27th November 2025; b. Statement of [APPELLANT], Estate Manager for the Applicant’s managing agents, [APPELLANT], dated 10th March 2026;

c. Notice of Intention dated 20th February 2025 and Notice of Estimates dated 31st March 2025, both in relation to the section 20 Consultation works; d. Correspondence from [COMPANY] to the Respondents dated 8th August 2025; e. Works orders in respect of the work to which the application relates; f. Contract Instruction documents in respect of the work to which the application relates; g. [NAME] lease.

16. The Tribunal has carefully considered all the available written evidence.

Relevant Evidence and the Tribunal’s Conclusions on the Issues 17. None of the Respondents has submitted a response to the application, there is no evidence to indicate that any Respondent objects to the application, nor is there any evidence before the Tribunal that indicates that any Respondent consider themselves to be prejudiced in any way by the absence of a section 20 consultation exercise.

18. The Applicant’s evidence is that additional works to those already consulted on were, subsequent to those works commencing, required to the roof of the property. However, the nature of flat roofs is that rotting of the supporting deck is often encountered following extensive water ingress and the Tribunal is of the view that repair or renewal might have been reasonably anticipated and budgeted for in the estimates. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence that the necessity for those works only became apparent following commencement of works and exposing the supporting deck. The Tribunal also accept that the identified remedial works were necessary and required to be done both urgently and in conjunction with the previously identified work. The specific works are identified in the documentation submitted by the Applicant, specifically the “Contract Instruction” documentation, works orders, and the additional lightning conduction tape identified in the application.

19. The application states that the works are “qualifying works” (within the meaning of sections 20 and 20ZA LTA) and that the works have “started/been carried out” (it is apparent from the application that the works have been carried out).

20. On the basis of the evidence submitted, and in the absence of any response from the Respondents objecting to the application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s remedial works which are the subject to the application were urgent works, required to be undertaken in the course of other significant repairs works, which had been consulted on.

21. The Tribunal finds that there is no relevant prejudice to any of the Respondents as a consequence of the Applicant proceeding with the works without first carrying out the further section 20 consultation.

22. The Respondents have made no representation as to any condition the Tribunal might impose in granting dispensation, and there is no evidence of any cost being incurred by the Respondents that should appropriately be met by the Applicant.

23. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers it reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements unconditionally.

24. Accordingly, the tribunal makes a determination, under section 20ZA of the Act, to dispense with the requirement to consult with the Respondents under section 20 in relation to the Works, as detailed in the application.

25. The Tribunal makes no findings, and expresses no view, as to whether any costs associated with the works for which dispensation has been granted are reasonable in amount, whether the works were necessary or of a reasonable standard, or whether the costs intended to be recovered by way of service charge are contractually payable under the tenancy agreements or are within the meaning of ‘relevant costs reasonably incurred’ in sections 19 and 27A of the Act. No such applications are currently before this Tribunal and the Tribunal’s decision does not include or imply any determination of such matters.

[NAME] Tribunal Judge

22nd May 2026

Schedule 1

Extracts from legislation

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 20

(Subsections (1) and (2):)

(1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are [COMPANY] 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) a 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 under the agreement.

Section 20ZA

(Subsection (1))

(1) Where an application is made to a 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.