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 a landlord to skip the usual consultation process for urgent roof repairs due to severe leaks, saving time and money.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent works if the failure to consult promptly would cause more prejudice to leaseholders than following the full consultation process.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent worksroof repairs

Provisions

section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant an exemption from consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State, which may include providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenants to suggest additional estimators, 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 consultation for urgent roof repairs under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for urgent roof repairs at a cost of £18,075.94, due to severe leaks, under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/LDC/2023/0206 Property : 159-161 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] [NAME] : N/A Type of [NAME] : [NAME] for dispensation from consultation – section 20Z of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 20 November 2023

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants the applicant dispensation from consultation, pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of works of repair at a cost of £18,075.94, to the roof of [NAME] situate at 159-161 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].

__________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. The applicant landlord has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of urgent works to repair the roof due to severe leaks through the roof of the subject premises at 159-161 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE](‘[NAME]).

2. [NAME] comprises a block containing 20 apartments. By a Notice of Intention dated 22 March 2023, the [NAME] were notified of the intention to carry out works of repair to the roof on the south side tower. However, the condition of the roof substantially deteriorated and allowed the ingress of water into [NAME]. Consequently, the applicant decided it was necessary to carry out urgent roof works during the summer months, in order to remedy the problem and avoid further damage and the likelihood of an increased cost of repair at a later date. These were started on 7 July 2023 and completed on 16 July at a total cost of £18,075.94. The hearing 3. As neither party requested an oral, the tribunal determined this [NAME] on the documents provided. The applicant relied upon a bundle of documents comprising 33 (electronic) pages. None of the [NAME] provided any evidence or other documents to the tribunal. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 4. In reaching its decision, the tribunal was satisfied the respondents had been notified of both of the need for roof works and of this [NAME] to the tribunal. The tribunal was also satisfied that no objection to this [NAME] for dispensation from consultation had been made or received by the applicant or by the tribunal.

5. The tribunal is satisfied that the works for which dispensation is sought were of an urgent nature and to have failed to have carried them out promptly was likely to have caused more prejudice to the leaseholders, than if the full consultation process had been followed.

3

6. In the absence of any objection from the respondents or the identification of any prejudice caused, the tribunal considers it reasonable to dispense with requirement for consultation in respect of the roof works carried out by the applicant in the total sum of £18,075.95; [APPELLANT] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 20 November 2023

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, [NAME] 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 tribunal granted dispensation for roof repair works costing £18,075.94.
  • The leaseholders were informed about the need for roof works and the application for dispensation.
  • No leaseholder objected to the application for dispensation from consultation.
  • The roof repairs were urgent, and delaying them would have harmed leaseholders more than skipping the full consultation.
  • The tribunal found it reasonable to dispense with consultation given the lack of objection and identified prejudice.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant dispensation from consultation for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and leaseholders of a building with 20 apartments.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the failure to consult promptly would cause more prejudice to leaseholders than following the full consultation process.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The urgency of the repairs and the potential for increased costs if repairs were delayed.

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

For the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might be able to skip the consultation process if the repairs are truly urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing the urgency of the repairs and the potential for increased costs if repairs were delayed.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, but only if permission to appeal is granted by the First-tier Tribunal.

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

Yes, it's always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property repairs and leaseholder rights.

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.