First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to skip the usual consultation process for urgent roof repairs at the address. The repairs were needed to fix water leakage and prevent more damage. No a person objected to the repairs.
⚖️ Legal holding
An applicant may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and no prejudice to the tenants is shown.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent roof repairs at 64 Graham Road. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent further damage and no objections were raised by the leaseholders.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AM/LDC/2022/0174 P:Paperremote Property : 64 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] Respondent: [redacted]
The [NAME] named on the schedule attached to the application
Type of application : To dispense with the consultation requirements under S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member(s) : [NAME] and venue of determination : 20 January 2023 Remote on the papers
DECISION
This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the Applicant and not objected to by the Respondent. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, no-one requested the same, and all the issues could be determined on the papers. The documents that I was referred to were in an electronic bundle, the contents of which I have recorded.
2
Decision of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal grants dispensation from all of the consultation requirements under S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to repairing the high level guttering and roof of the premises. (2) The question of reasonableness of the works or cost was not included in this application, the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation. The Background 1. The application under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) was made by [APPELLANT] on behalf of the applicants on 9 September 2022.
2. The application concerned urgent roof works.
3. Directions were issued on 24 October 2022 requiring the applicant to prepare bundles by 16 December 2022 to include statements (i) Setting out the full grounds for the application, including all of the documents on which the landlord relies and copies of any replies from the tenants; (ii) The [NAME] were asked to confirm by 2 December 2022 whether or not they would give their consent to the application. (iii) In the event that such agreement was not forthcoming the [NAME] were to state why they opposed the application; and provide copies of all documents to be relied upon. 4. [APPELLANT], on behalf of the applicant, confirmed that on 2 November the [NAME] and the solicitor acing on behalf of the estate of the deceased lessee of Flat 4 had each been sent a copy of the [POSTCODE] application form, the applicant’s statement of case, a copy of the Directions and reply form. [COMPANY] confirmed that no objections had been received from any interested party.
5. The [NAME] were informed in the Directions issued by the Tribunal that the question of reasonableness of the works or cost was not included in this application, the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation. The Evidence
3 6. [ADDRESS] is a Victorian house which has been converted into four flats. The roof was leaking resulting in water ingress into Flat 4. No consultation took place because the works were urgent to prevent further damage. A quotation for the works in the sum of £2650 was obtained from [COMPANY]. The Decision 7. The relevant test to be applied in an application for dispensation was set out by the Supreme Court in [COMPANY] v [NAME] & Ors [2013] UKSC 14 where it was held that the purpose of the section 20 consultation procedure was to protect tenants from paying for inappropriate works or paying an inappropriate amount. Dispensation should not result in prejudice to the tenant.
8. The Tribunal determines from the evidence before it that the applicant took all reasonable steps to undertake the repairs in a timely manner to prevent additional damage to the building. There have been no objections from any leaseholder and no prejudice to the lessees has been demonstrated or asserted.
9. On the evidence before it, and in these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the application for dispensation be granted.
Name: [NAME]: 20 January 2023
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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
4 for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.
4. 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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted Permission to Purchase Freehold Interest
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Granted Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Freehold Interest Transfer
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Freehold Purchase Price
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Boiler Replacement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Wall Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission to Install Fire Safety System Without Tenant Co…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Demolition Dispensation
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 were urgent to prevent further damage to the building.
- No objections from any leaseholder were received regarding the necessity of the repairs.
- The landlord took all reasonable steps to undertake the repairs in a timely manner.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant did not demonstrate or assert any prejudice resulting from the lack of consultation.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It allowed the landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent roof repairs.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the leaseholders of the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent further damage, and no leaseholder objected.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from the leaseholders were the key arguments.
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 if the repairs are urgent and there are no objections from the leaseholders.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the urgency of the repairs and confirmation that no leaseholders objected to the repairs were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal 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.
