VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass the usual consultation process because urgent roof repairs were needed to fix leaks that were damaging the electrics and ceilings inside the flats.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements if urgent works are necessary and there is insufficient time for statutory consultation.

Topics

urgent worksroof repairsconsultation requirements

Provisions

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

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant an exemption from consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so, particularly when urgent works are necessary and there isn't enough time for the usual statutory consultations.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements due to urgent roof repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements to the applicant due to urgent roof repairs that were necessary to prevent water ingress and damage to electrical systems and ceilings.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

LON/00BK/LDC/2024/0135

Property

:

51 [RESPONDENT], London [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

51 [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY]

:

Ms [COUNSEL] [NAME] - [RESPONDENT]

Respondent: [redacted]

:

Type of Application

:

Application dispensation from consultation requirements Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge [NAME] and venue of the Hearing

:

Decision on the papers

Date of Decision

:

6 August 2024

DECISION

2

Senior President of Tribunals Practice Direction: Reasons for Decisions 4 June 2024

1. This Practice Direction states basic and important principles on the giving of written reasons for decisions in the First-tier Tribunal. It is of general application throughout the First-tier Tribunal. It relates to the whole range of substantive and procedural decision- making in the Tribunal, by both judges and non-legal members.

Accordingly, it must always be read and applied having regard to the particular nature of the decision in question and the particular circumstances in which that decision is made (paragraph 1).

2. Where reasons are given, they must always be adequate, clear, appropriately concise, and focused upon the principal controversial issues on which the outcome of the case has turned. To be adequate, the reasons for a judicial decision must explain to the parties why they have won and lost. The reasons must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the main issues in dispute. They must always enable an appellate body to understand why the decision was reached, so that it is able to assess whether the decision involved the making of an error on a point of law. These fundamental principles apply to the tribunals as well as to the courts (paragraph 5).

3. Providing adequate reasons does not usually require the First-tier Tribunal to identify all of the evidence relied upon in reaching its findings of fact, to elaborate at length its conclusions on any issue of law, or to express every step of its reasoning. The reasons provided for any decision should be proportionate, not only to the resources of the Tribunal, but to the significance and complexity of the issues that have to be decided. Reasons need refer only to the main issues and evidence in dispute, and explain how those issues essential to the Tribunal’s conclusion have been resolved (paragraph 6).

4. Stating reasons at any greater length than is necessary in the particular case is not in the interests of justice. To do so is an inefficient use of judicial time, does not assist either the parties or an appellate court or tribunal, and is therefore inconsistent with the overriding objective. Providing concise reasons is to be encouraged. Adequate reasons for a substantive decision may often be short. In some cases a few succinct paragraphs will suffice. For a procedural decision the reasons required will usually be shorter (Paragraph 7).

Application

5. The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act.

3

6. The Applicant explains that urgent works had to be carried out on the roof to prevent water ingress which was leaking into electrics and causing parts of the ceilings to flake within the flats. The main flats affected were Flats 6, 7, 8 and 9. The works were completed in January 2024 at a cost of £4,495.08 which exceeded the threshold of £2,250 for triggering the requirement to consult with [NAME].

7. The Application for dispensation with the required fee was received on 9 June 2024.

8. On 13 June 2024 the Tribunal directed the Applicant to serve the application and directions on the [NAME] which was done on 19 June 2024

9. The Tribunal directed that the Application would be heard on the papers unless a party requested an oral hearing. No party made such a request.

10. The Tribunal required the [NAME] to return a pro-forma to the Tribunal and the Applicant if they objected to the Application by 18 July 2024. The Tribunal and the Applicant received no objections from the [NAME].

11. The Applicant supplied a hearing bundle.

Determination

12. The Tribunal has had regard to the hearing bundle, and the decision of the Supreme Court in [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14.

13. The Tribunal finds that the works to repair the roof were necessary and urgent and there was not sufficient time to carry out statutory consultation. The Tribunal further finds that the works were carried out by a reputable contractor. The Tribunal takes into account that the [NAME] submitted no objections to the Application. The Tribunal is, therefore, satisfied that the [NAME] would suffer no relevant prejudice if dispensation from consultation was granted.

14. The Tribunal, therefore, dispenses with the consultation requirements in respect of the works to repair to the roof.

15. The Tribunal’s decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the works. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of those works are reasonable or payable. If a leaseholder wishes to challenge the reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under

4 section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.

16. The Tribunal directs the Applicant to inform the [NAME] of the Tribunal’s decision and to display the written decision on a noticeboard in the common areas.

5

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 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 tribunal found that the roof repairs were necessary and urgent, leaving no time for standard consultation.
  • The works were carried out by a reputable contractor.
  • The residents did not object to the application for dispensation.
  • The tribunal was satisfied that the residents would not suffer prejudice if dispensation was granted.

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 skip the consultation process for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the works were urgent and necessary, and there wasn't enough time to consult the leaseholders.

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 roof repairs.

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 might also be able to get dispensation from consultation requirements if their works are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing the urgency and necessity of the repairs was crucial.

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's recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.