VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs to Flat 9, citing the immediate need and potential safety concerns.

⚖️ Legal holding

It is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 when there is an urgent need for repairs.

Topics

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985Consultation RequirementsRoof Repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can decide to waive consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent roof repairs to Flat 9, finding it reasonable given the urgency and potential risk to occupants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AM/LDC/2025/0839 Property : 1-33 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] Type of [NAME] : Dispensation of consultation requirements under s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tonya Richards-Clarke Venue : Remote Paper hearing Date of decision : 18 November 2025

DECISION

Decision of the tribunal 1. The Tribunal grants the [NAME] for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ("the Act") in relation to remedial works to the roof above [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].

The [NAME] 2. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.20ZA of the Act for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by s.20 of the Act. The [NAME] was dated 20 August 2025.

2 3. Directions of the Tribunal were issued on 3 October 2025. [NAME] has complied with the service requirements of these directions by sending to each of the [NAME] a copy of the [NAME], a brief statement explain the reasons for the [NAME] and the directions. These were also displayed in the common parts of the property.

4. The case was listed for a paper determination. Neither party requested an oral hearing. The hearing 5. The matter was determined by way of a paper hearing which took place on 18 November 2025. The background 6. The property which is the subject of this [NAME] is a purpose built block of 33 flats.

The [NAME]

7. The Applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of qualifying works due to remediate the roof that falls directly above Flat 9. This is because the area of roof has dropped and is bowing in places meaning that there are large gaps below the slates. Repars are required urgently to this area of roof due to uncertainty surrounding the structural support. This is why the [NAME] is said to be urgent.

8. There applicant has obtained a two quotes in the sum of £10,900 plus VAT, and £15,381.49 plus VAT, respectively.

9. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [NAME] did not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

10. No notice was received from any of the Respondents opposing the [NAME]. The one response received from one Respondent leaseholder, in letter dated 22 October 2025 and [NAME] for disclosure dated 23 October 2025, requested details of the roof condition survey and confirmation that the contractors invited to tender for the works were wholly unconnected with the freeholder. The requested information was provided by the Applicant on 5 November 2025 together with confirmation that the companies who provided quotes for the works are wholly unconnected with the freeholder. In their letter dated 22 October 2025 this Respondent leaseholder also indicated that they had not completed an objection form because they did not wish to delay the works.

3 The decision of the Tribunal 11. s.20 of the Act provides for the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutory consultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250 can be recovered from a tenant in respect of such works unless the consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed with.

12. Dispensation is dealt with by s.20ZA of the Act which provides: - "Where an [NAME] 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. Taking into account that there have been no objections to this [NAME] from the Respondents, the Tribunal could not find prejudice to any of the leaseholders of the property by the granting of dispensation relating to the urgent works to the roof directly above [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].

14. As a result, the Tribunal believes that it is reasonable to allow dispensation in relation to the subject matter of the [NAME].

15.

Accordingly, the Tribunal grants the Applicant’s [NAME] for the dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to urgent remedial works to roof that falls directly above [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. The Tribunal is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of this case, involving risks to the occupant(s) of the affected flats and/or of further damage to this and other flats at the property, it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements.

16. The Tribunal's determination is limited to this [NAME] for dispensation of consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Act

Name: [NAME]: 18 November 2025

4

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).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

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 are urgent and necessary.
  • There are no objections from the tenants.
  • The works address a significant safety issue.
  • Consultation is impracticable due to urgency.
  • The landlord reasonably believes consultation is unnecessary.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision allowed the landlord to bypass the consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the leaseholders of the property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the dispensation because the repairs were deemed urgent and necessary to prevent further damage and ensure safety.

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 the urgency and necessity of the repairs to ensure safety and prevent further damage.

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 might also be able to bypass consultation requirements if the repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgent need for repairs and confirmation that the contractors were independent of the freeholder mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.