First-tier Tribunal Grants Freeholder Dispensation for Roof Repairs

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

HAV/43UK/LDC/2026/0026

Property

:

[APPELLANT], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[COUNSEL], a Director of the Applicant and a [NAME]

Respondents

:

[redacted]

:

N/A

Type of [NAME]

:

To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal

:

Tribunal Judge Mohabir

Date of Decision

:

24 April 2026

DECISION

2 1. The Applicant seeks an order pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) for retrospective dispensation with the consultation requirements in respect of roof repair works at the property known as [APPELLANT], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“the property”).

2. The property is described as being a Victorian country house that has been converted into ten flats in 2008. The Applicant is the freeholder of the property.

3. It is the Applicant’s case that the roofing system had failed, which resulted in leaks into one of the flats. Following removal of the failed roofing system, the roof would be replaced by an insulated flat roof with a GRP finish. All existing lead flashings and coping stones would also be replaced. The works will be covered by a 10 year contractor’s warranty and a 10 year insurance backed guarantee. A temporary roof had been installed to protect the affected flat from further leaks. Apparently, the works commenced mid-December 2025 with the installation of the temporary roof. It is assumed that the works have been completed at the time of this decision and the Tribunal proceeds on this basis.

4. The [NAME] states that all of the [NAME] have been (informally) consulted and it was agreed that following obtaining three comparative quotations that the works should proceed immediately to mitigate further leaks into the affected flat. It was also agreed that these works will be funded from funds in hand at no additional cost to the [NAME]. Retrospective dispensation is sought on the basis that the works had commenced to prevent further water ingress into the affected flat.,

5. By an [NAME] dated 12 February 2026, the Applicant applied seeking dispensation for the roof repair works. On 24 February 202, the Tribunal issued Directions and these were served on each of the Respondents. The Respondents were directed to respond to the [NAME] stating whether they objected to it in any way by 16 March 2026. No objections have been received. Indeed, the [NAME] of Flats 1-6 and 8-9 have replied actively supporting the [NAME].

Relevant Law

6. This is set out in the Appendix annexed hereto.

Decision 7. As directed, the Tribunal’s determination “on the papers” took place on 21 April 2026 and was based solely on the documentary evidence filed by the Applicant. As stated earlier, no objections had been received from any of the Respondents, nor had they filed any evidence.

8. The relevant test to the applied in an [NAME] such as this has been set out in the Supreme Court decision in [COMPANY] v [NAME] & Ors [2013] UKSC 14 where it was held that the purpose of

3 the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Act was to ensure that tenants were protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than was appropriate. In other words, a tenant should suffer no prejudice in this way.

9. The issue before the Tribunal was whether dispensation should be granted in relation to the requirement to carry out statutory consultation with the [NAME] regarding the roof repair works. The Tribunal is not concerned about the actual cost that has been incurred.

10. The Tribunal granted the [NAME] for the following main reasons:

(a) The Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondents had, at all material times, been kept informed of the need for the roof repair work and had been served with the [NAME] together the evidence in support. There has been no objection from any of them. The Tribunal attached significant weight to this.

(b) The Tribunal accepted the Applicant’s unchallenged evidence that the roof repair work was required because the existing roofing system had failed and was in urgent need of comprehensive refurbishment and/or replacement, which was causing water ingress to one of the flats.

(c) The Tribunal was mindful of the fact that the loss of amenity caused by the water ingress and any the delay in the Applicant having to carry out consultation would have been significant for the affected [NAME]. The Tribunal was, therefore, satisfied that the there is an urgent basis for the roof repairs to be carried out.

(d) Given that the [NAME] is unopposed, the Tribunal was also satisfied that the requirement to carry out consultation was in effect academic and meaningless and would merely result in further unnecessary delay for the Respondents.

(e) Importantly, the real prejudice to the Respondents would be in the cost of the work and they have not been able to establish any such prejudice. Indeed, the Tribunal was informed that the cost of the roof repairs would be met by existing funds with no further cost to the Respondents. Whilst the cost of the work is, strictly speaking, not within the scope of this [NAME], it is nevertheless a mitigating factor.

(f) Furthermore, the Respondents have the statutory protection of section 19 of the Act, which preserves their right to challenge the actual costs incurred by [NAME] a separate service charge [NAME] under section 27A of the Act.

4 11. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Respondents were not being prejudiced by the Applicant’s failure to consult, and the [NAME] was granted as sought.

12. It should be noted that in granting this part of the [NAME], the Tribunal makes no finding that the scope and cost of the repairs are reasonable.

Name: Tribunal Judge Mohabir Date: 24 April 2026

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, the property 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).

5 Appendix of relevant legislation Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 20 (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate tribunal . (2) In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount, which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement. (3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount. (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount. (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in

6 accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.

Section 20ZA

(1) Where an [NAME] is made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long- term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.