VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to skip the usual consultation process for urgent roof repairs at a residential property in North Cheam. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent damage to the top floor flat.

⚖️ Legal holding

It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements where there is no prejudice to a person.

Topics

statutory consultation 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

This section allows a tribunal to grant permission to skip certain consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so, without causing harm to anyone involved. The consultation requirements refer to providing details about proposed works or agreements to tenants or their representatives, obtaining estimates, inviting suggestions for additional estimates, considering tenant feedback, and giving reasons for certain actions.

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

📖 Technical summary

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

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs at a residential property in North Cheam. The Tribunal found that the leaseholders had been notified and there was no objection to the application.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BF/LDC/2024/0615 Property : 19-24 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] [APPELLANT]. Representative : [COUNSEL] of In Block Management Respondents : [redacted] : Not Represented Type of [NAME] : For the determination of an [NAME] for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements Tribunal Members : Judge S.J. Walker Date and venue of Hearing : Decided on the Papers Date of Decision : 15 April 2025

DECISION

Decision of the Tribunal

The Tribunal determines that the statutory consultation requirements shall be dispensed with in respect of the repair works to the roof at 19-[ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], North Cheam as specified in the [NAME].

2

Reasons The [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) dispensing with the statutory consultation requirements which apply by virtue of section 20 of the 1985 Act in respect of repair works to the roof of the property. These include installing breathable tiling felt, refixing missing vent tile covers, battening the roof, replacing defective tiles, and repairing sections of lead flashing.

2. The [NAME] was made on or about 18 September 2024 and stated that it was being made because there was a leak through the roof into the top floor flat.

3. Directions were made on 3 February 2025. They required the Applicant to send copies of the [NAME] and the directions to the [NAME] and to display a copy of them in a prominent place in the common parts of the property. I am satisfied that this was done, as confirmed in an e-mail to the Tribunal dated 17 February 2025 (page 54).

4. The directions provided that those [NAME] who opposed the [NAME] were to complete a reply form and return it to the Tribunal by 10 March 2025.

5. The directions further provided that the [NAME] would be determined on the papers in the week commencing 14 April 2025 unless by 7 April 2025 any party requested a hearing.

6. The Tribunal has received no objections or correspondence from any of the Respondents and no request for an oral hearing has been received.

7. I am satisfied that the Respondents have been given notice of the [NAME] and how to object to it and that they have been given notice that it is intended to deal with the [NAME] without a hearing. In the absence of any request for a hearing this determination is made on the papers which have been provided by the parties pursuant to rule 31(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

8. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the Appendix to this decision.

9. Neither party requested an inspection, and the Tribunal did not consider that one was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute.

10. The applicant prepared a bundle consisting of 58 numbered pages. References to page numbers throughout this decision are to the page numbers of this bundle.

3 The Background 11. The property comprises a three-storey purpose built block containing 6 flats. The Lease 12. No evidence of title was produced. However, no issue has been raised as to the right of the Applicant to make this [NAME].

13. A copy of a sample lease was provided to the Tribunal (pages 19 – 53). I was satisfied that it included the usual obligations on the tenant to pay a contribution towards the expenses incurred in repairing all parts of the building. In this case the repairing obligation rests with the Applicant, an [COMPANY], rather than with the landlord, and service charges which include repair costs are payable to the Applicant. The Issues 14. The only issue for me is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. I am not concerned with the issue of whether any service charge costs or legal costs will be reasonable or payable.

The Applicant’s Case 15. The Applicant’s case is that urgent repairs to the roof were required because of a leak into one of the top floor flats. The Respondents were notified that the works were necessary and being carried out and were notified that a dispensation [NAME] would be made. The total cost of the works was £4,440. This would result in a charge to each flat in excess of £250.

16. The Applicant’s case is that this work was urgently required in order to prevent damage to the top floor flat. The Respondents’ Case 17. As previously explained, no objections have been received from any [NAME]. The Tribunal’s Decision 18. I am satisfied that the consultation requirements should be dispensed with. I am satisfied that in view of the identified damage to the roof it is appropriate to carry out the identified remedial works and that it is appropriate to grant a dispensation.

19. I am satisfied that the [NAME] have been notified of the [NAME] and I bear in mind that there has been no objection from any of them to it. I also bear in mind the limited scope of the issue before me. The purpose of the consultation requirements is to protect tenants from paying for inappropriate works and from paying more than would be appropriate for such works. It follows that the issue when considering dispensation is the extent to which the tenants are prejudiced as regards these two protections. There is nothing before me to suggest that the [NAME] would suffer any prejudice if this [NAME] were granted.

4 20. In all the circumstances the I am satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements. Name: Judge S.J. Walker Date:

15 April 2025

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

• The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its decisions by virtue of the rule 36 (2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below.

• If a party wishes to appeal against 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.

Appendix of relevant legislation

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 18 (1) In the following provisions of this Act "service charge" means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent - (a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or the landlord's costs of management, and (b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs.

5 (2) The relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a [NAME], in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable. (3) For this purpose - (a) "costs" includes overheads, and (b) costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period. Section 19 (1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period - (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provisions of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly. (2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise Section 20 (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited 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) 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 the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement. (3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount.

6 (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount. (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.] Section 20ZA (1) Where an [NAME] 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 long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements. (2) In section 20 and this section – “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and

“qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a [NAME], for a term of more than twelve months.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement –

(a) if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or

(b) in any circumstances so prescribed.

(4) In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord

(a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the [COMPANY] representing them,

(b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements,

7

(c) to invite tenants or the [COMPANY] to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates,

(d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the [COMPANY] in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and

(e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements

(6) Regulations under section 20 or this section

(a) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and

(b) may make different provision for different purposes.

(7) Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

📊 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.
  • There is no prejudice to leaseholders.
  • The landlord needs to comply with a fire safety enforcement notice.
  • The leaseholders have not objected.
  • The leaseholders have not suffered real prejudice.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal allowed the dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The applicant was the Residents Association and the respondents were the leaseholders.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the leaseholders were notified and there were no objections to the application.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically sections 20 and 20ZA.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the repairs were urgent and leaseholders had been properly notified.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be able to skip the consultation process if the repairs are urgent and leaseholders are properly notified.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence that the repairs were urgent and leaseholders were properly notified mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case 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.