First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BE/LDC/2026/0026 Property : 115-117 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] : N/A Type of [NAME] : Dispensation pursuant to Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 24 April 2026

DECISION

2 Decision of the Tribunal 1. The Tribunal determines to exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements provided by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The [NAME] 2. [NAME] applied on behalf of the Applicant on 15 January 2026 under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), for dispensation from the consultation requirements provided for by Section 20 of the Act.

3. The [NAME] indicated that the subject of the dispensation [NAME] was in relation to roof repair works connected to the failure of OSB boards.

4. The [NAME] explained that the reason that dispensation was sought was because there was a high risk of imminent major failure of the OSB boards. A full Section 20 consultation had already been carried out in respect of roof repair works, including covering the roof with EPDM rubber and promenade tiles. During the project, investigation showed that OSB boards were rotten and disintegrating and the structural integrity of the roof surface compromised. Additional works to fix this were therefore identified as urgently required. Procedure 5. The Tribunal issued directions on 6 March 2026.

6. The directions provided an opportunity for the Respondents to provide a statement objecting to the [NAME]. No responses were received by the Tribunal.

7. The directions also gave an opportunity for the Respondents to request a hearing. No hearing was requested so the matter has proceeded based on the papers provided to the Tribunal.

8. The Tribunal has considered the written bundle of 63 pages in support of the [NAME].

3 Determination The Background 10. The Property is a block of seven residential apartments, with two commercial units on the ground floor. The Applicant is the Landlord.

11. Section 20 consultation is not required or relevant in connection with non-residential premises and the findings of the Tribunal will not affect commercial occupiers in the Property, as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal does not extend to commercial premises.

12. The evidence and submissions of the Applicant is as follows: i. The [NAME] is for an unconditional dispensation from the consultation requirements prescribed under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to additional works to replace failed OSB boards during roof repairs. ii. Correspondence with the leaseholders about the works and confirmation the process directed by the Tribunal has been followed. iii. An invoice from [NAME] ([COMPANY] totalling £1,800, comprising £1,350 for EDPM roofing material and trims and £450 for rotten OSB replacement.

13. No information has been provided to the Tribunal about the total cost of the works or how this would be apportioned between the leaseholders.

14. In accordance with Tribunal directions, the Applicant notified leaseholders of the Section 20ZA [NAME], including how to respond. No responses from leaseholders were received by the Tribunal. The Law 15. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under Section 20ZA of the Act. The wording of Section 20ZA, subsection (1) provides: ‘Where an [NAME] is made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreements, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements’.

16. The Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 (Daejan) is the leading authority on how the statutory provisions are to be interpreted.

4 The Tribunal’s Decision 17. The Tribunal determines to grant the [NAME]. Reasons for the Tribunal’s Decision 18. The [NAME] explains the reasons the works needed to be undertaken in the manner in which they were.

19. No objections were received from leaseholders.

20. The Tribunal therefore determines that it is reasonable to grant the [NAME] sought.

21. Both parties should note that this determination does not concern the issue of whether the service charge costs demanded in connection with the works are reasonable or indeed payable. The Respondents are able, if it appears to them to be appropriate, to make an [NAME] under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as to reasonableness and payability.

Name: [NAME]: 24 April 2026

5 Rights of Appeal

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 [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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).