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 bypass the usual consultation process with tenants for urgent roof repairs. This was allowed because the repairs were necessary to prevent further damage to the building.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are necessary and urgent to prevent further damage.

Topics

tenancy disputesroof repairsurgent works

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

The appropriate tribunal can grant a request to waive consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to consult tenants about proposed works or agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 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 to prevent further damage to the building. The decision was based on the necessity and urgency of the works.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2019/0211 Property : 43 – [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] Respondent [NAME] : [NAME] as per the [NAME] : - Type of [NAME] : To dispense with the consultation requirements under S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member(s) : [NAME] and venue of determination : 15 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

DECISION

2

Decision of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal grants dispensation from all the consultation requirements under S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to the roof survey, repairs and associated costs. The Background 1. The [NAME] under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) was made by [APPELLANT] on behalf of the Applicants on 2nd December 2019.

2. The [NAME] concerned the steps necessary to identify the works required to prevent further water ingress into the building and make good the damage to the top floor flats.

3. Directions were issued on 11 December 2019 requiring the applicant to prepare bundles by 10 January 2020 to include statements (i) Setting out the full grounds for the [NAME], including all the documents on which the landlord relies and copies of any replies from the tenants; (ii) The [NAME] were asked to confirm by 23rd December 2019 whether or not they would give their consent to the [NAME]. (iii) In the event that such agreement was not forthcoming the [NAME] were to state why they opposed the [NAME]; and provide copies of all documents to be relied upon.

4. No responses were received from the [NAME].

5. The lessees were informed in the Directions issued by the Tribunal that the question of reasonableness of the works or cost was not included in this [NAME], the sole purpose of which is to seek dispensation. The Evidence 6. The property comprises a building built in the early 1900’s and converted to 27 flats over 6 storeys.

7. By paragraph 4.2 of the leases, the Applicant has covenanted as follows:

3 To maintain and keep in good and substantial repair and condition: (i) The main structure of the Building including the principal internal timbers and the exterior walls and the foundations and the roof …...

8. The Applicant stated that on 24 September 2019 the property Housekeeper reported that following heavy rainfall there had been significant water ingress into [ADDRESS] which had resulted in the living room ceiling collapsing. Leaks elsewhere in the property were also reported including to [ADDRESS].

9. A surveyor was appointed to ascertain the cause of the water ingress as other leaks had been reported previously. Scaffolding was required and quotations obtained for the works.

10. A notice of intention to carry out the works was served on 24 October 2019 and the [NAME] were advised at the same time that an [NAME] for dispensation under section 20ZA was to be made. No observations and/or nominations of contractors have been received. 11. [NAME] were working on a neighbouring building and could commence work the soonest. They submitted their initial quotation on 1st November in the sum of £22,316.00 + VAT. Scaffolding was erected on 4 December and a final schedule of works was agreed with a total cost of £18,933.00 +VAT on 12 December 2019.

12. Full works commenced on 6 January 2020, overseen by [NAME].

13. The applicant states that dispensation is sought due to the urgency to undertake the works to avoid further damage to the affected flats and before the weather gets wetter and colder. The Decision 14. The relevant test to be applied in an [NAME] 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.

15. The Tribunal determines from the evidence before it that the works were necessary, were required to be completed as soon as possible to

4 reduce the risk of further damage to the building and comply with the landlord’s covenants within the leases. 16. On the evidence before it, and in these circumstances, the Tribunal determines that the [NAME] for dispensation be granted. Name: [NAME]: 15 January 2020

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

i. 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.

ii. 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].

iii. 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.

iv. 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.

📊 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

  • Works are deemed necessary and urgent to prevent further damage.
  • The landlord undertakes emergency remediation without prior consultation if urgent.
  • The landlord seeks dispensation from consultation requirements under relevant sections.
  • Tribunals can determine appropriate sums for landlords who cannot be found.
  • Rent adjustments are allowed based on the property's actual condition and tenancy terms.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that consistently went against the claimant in the provided cases.)

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 bypass the consultation process with tenants for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and various leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the works were necessary and urgent to prevent further damage to the building.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20 and Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the necessity and urgency of the roof repairs.

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

The decision was for the landlord who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be able to bypass the consultation process if the works are necessary and urgent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of 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 within 28 days.

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

It is always recommended to get 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.