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 for landlords to bypass consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs at a London property. The decision was based on the necessity of the repairs and the lack of objections from leaseholders.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if urgent repairs are necessary and there is no evidence of prejudice to leaseholders.

Topics

dispensation from consultation requirementsurgent repairsroof repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s20ZAService Charges (Consultation Requirements (England) Regulations 2013

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

Under this section, the appropriate tribunal can grant a determination to dispense with consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to works on a building or premises, and the consultation requirements are detailed rules set by the Secretary of State through regulations.

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 First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent roof repairs at a London property. The tribunal found that the repairs were necessary due to water ingress and that there was no evidence of prejudice to the leaseholders.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/LDC/2023/0269 Property : Flats at 47 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] : [COUNSEL] of [RESPONDENT] (managing agents) Respondent : [redacted] the Property Representative : None Type of application : Application for dispensation under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member(s) : Judge [NAME] (Hons) LLM Property Law MA Date and venue of hearing : Paper determination Date of decision : 8 February 2024

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal The tribunal determines that dispensation should be granted from the consultation provisions under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant At 1985 for the reasons set out below. Background 1. This is an application under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) by the landlords, [APPELLANT] and [NAME] in respect of the property at 47 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (the Property) for dispensation from the consultation requirements under s20 of the Act. The application is dated 24 October 2023.

2. We have been supplied with a bundle running to some 54 pages. As well as the application, the bundle included the directions issued by the tribunal on 6 December 2023, a short statement on behalf of the Applicants, an invoice from [NAME] [NAME] the roofing contractors dated 17 October 2023 in the sum £2,100, confirmation that the Respondents had been supplied with all documents as required by the directions and that there had been no objections lodged. In addition, a copy of the lease for flat B was included. We have taken them into account when reaching our decision.

3. The property is a converted house comprising three flats. We are told that urgent repairs were required to the roof above flat C, because of ingress of water which has damaged the interior of the flat. The works have been completed, having started on or about 17 October 2023 at the price was as shown on the [NAME] invoice of £2,100.

4. The directions issued on 6 December 2023 provided that in the absence of any disagreement the application would proceed as a paper determination. We are not aware that any leaseholder has objected to the application to dispense.

Findings 5. We have considered this matter solely on the papers before us. This application relates only to the dispensation from the consultation requirements set out at s20 of the Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements (England) Regulations 2013 (the Regulations). It does not relate to the reasonableness or payability of the costs associated with the works.

6. The invoice produced and the short statement of case provide the evidence that there was water ingress, which needed to be attended to urgently. We are satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation from the consultation requirements. We have borne in mind the

3 Supreme Court decision in [COMPANY] v Benson and others [2013] UKSC 14. There is no evidence of any prejudice caused to the leaseholders and indeed none have raised an objection to the application. Dispensation is therefore granted from the consultation process as provided for in the Regulations. Name: Judge Dutton Date: 8 February 2024

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 application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application 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 making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 10 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

  • Urgent roof repairs were needed due to water leaking into flat C, causing interior damage.
  • The tribunal was satisfied that granting dispensation from consultation requirements was reasonable.
  • There was no evidence that the leaseholders were harmed by the lack of consultation.
  • No leaseholder objected to the application for dispensation.
  • The works had already been completed at the cost shown on the roofing contractors' invoice.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

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

Who was involved?

The landlords and the leaseholders of the property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and leaseholders did not object.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s20ZA and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements (England) Regulations 2013 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from leaseholders.

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 obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if their repairs are urgent and leaseholders do not object.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as invoices and statements showing the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from leaseholders 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 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.