First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs due to a leak. The a person were informed about the repairs, but no objections were raised.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Tribunal may grant dispensation under the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 if it is reasonable to do so, considering the absence of prejudice.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it is deemed reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements themselves are defined by regulations set by the Secretary of State.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
A landlord received dispensation for not consulting tenants before conducting urgent roof repairs due to a lack of objections and minimal potential prejudice.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation to the landlord from the consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs due to a leak. The leaseholders were informed of the leak and the planned repairs, but no objections were raised.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2018
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AN/LDC/2021/0239 HMCTS Code : P:PAPERREMOTE Property : 18 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] ([COUNSEL]) Respondents : [redacted] [POSTCODE] Type of application : An application for dispensation from the consultation requirements of s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge D Brandler Date and venue of hearing : 30th November 2021 [ADDRESS], LondonWC1E 7LR (remotely) Date of decision : 30th November 2021
DECISION
2 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face-to- face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and no-one requested the same and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents that I was referred to are in an electronic bundle prepared by the applicant containing 36 pages. References in this decision are to page numbers in square brackets. The order made is described at the end of these reasons. Decision
1. The Tribunal grants the applicant retrospective dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of remedial roof works at 18 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] ("The building").
Background to the Application
2. The Tribunal did not inspect the building as it considered the documentation and information before it in the appeal bundle enabled the Tribunal to proceed with this determination and also because of the restrictions and regulations arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic.
3. This has been a paper hearing which has not been objected to by the parties. The Tribunal had before it an electronic bundle prepared by the applicant in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions issued on 5th October 2021 [21].
4. The applicant landlord seeks retrospective dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by section 20 of the 1985 Act in respect of remedial roof works at the building further to a leak into Flat 4 on the second floor. That leak was reported by the [NAME] of that flat on 12/07/2021 described as “water pouring into the flat through the light fittings”. Electrical works were required to disconnect the kitchen lights to make the electrics safe, leaving the occupiers with battery operated lights only until the roof works were completed [27].
5. The remedial roof works were carried out on or around 06/08/2021. No Section 20 Notices were issued to the [NAME]. The reason given was because the representative knew “what work was required and the cost [NAME] were written to and notified” [8].
6. The works were said to be urgent because of the leak into the second floor flat through the light fittings making the electrics unsafe and causing damage to decorations.
3 7. The building is a brick built Edwardian terrace house which has been converted into 4 flats over 4 floors: [ADDRESS], the Ground floor flat, the 1st Floor Flat and the 2nd Floor Flat (flat 4).
8. By an email dated 29/07/2021, the [NAME] were informed of a serious water ingress into flat 4. Information was provided in relation to two quotations obtained for the cost of scaffolding, the roof being inaccessible without scaffolding. [NAME] provided a quotation of £1350 plus VAT for the scaffolding and a “worst case” scenario of a provisional quotation for roof repairs of £3000 plus VAT. The second company, [NAME], quoted £1400 including VAT for the scaffolding but were not prepared to provide a provisional quotation for works without an inspection having taken place. Based on the quotations, the applicant’s representatives decided to instruct [NAME]. The email also informs the [NAME] about the planned dispensation application to the First-tier Tribunal [35].
9. The invoice for the works carried out by [NAME] is dated 06/08/2021 and details the work carried out. The total amount charged was £5220 inclusive of VAT [36].
10. On 11/10/2021 the applicant’s representative confirmed service by email of the application and directions to all the [NAME]. The representative further confirmed that on 13/10/2021 they were intending to place the application and the directions in the communal hallway in compliance with Tribunal’s Direction (1). The [NAME]’ case 11. No objections to this application have been received by the Tribunal.
Reasons for Decision
12. The only issue for the Tribunal to decide is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application does not concern the issue of whether or not service charges will be reasonable or payable.
13. Having read the evidence and submissions from the applicant and noted that there have been no objections to this application, the Tribunal determines the dispensation issues as follows.
14. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 require a landlord planning to undertake major works, where a [NAME] will be required to contribute over £250 towards those works, to consult the [NAME] in a specified form.
4 15. Should a landlord not comply with the correct consultation procedure, it is possible to obtain dispensation from compliance with these requirements by such an application as is this one before the Tribunal. Essentially the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.
16. The leading authority in relation to s.20ZA dispensation requests is [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] 1 WLR 854 (“Benson”) in which the Supreme Court set out guidance as to the approach to be taken by a tribunal when considering such applications. This was to focus on the extent, if any, to which the lessees were prejudiced in either paying for inappropriate works or paying more than would be appropriate, because of the failure of the landlord to comply with the consultation requirements. In his judgment, Lord [NAME] said as follows;
44. Given that the purpose of the Requirements is to ensure that the tenants are protected from (i) paying for inappropriate works or (ii) paying more than would be appropriate, it seems to me that the issue on which the LVT should focus when entertaining an application by a landlord under section 20ZA(1) must be the extent, if any, to which the tenants were prejudiced in either respect by the failure of the landlord to comply with the Requirements.
45. Thus, in a case where it was common ground that the extent, quality and cost of the works were in no way affected by the landlord’s failure to comply with the Requirements, I find it hard to see why the dispensation should not be granted (at least in the absence of some very good reason): in such a case the tenants would be in precisely the position that the legislation intended them to be – ie as if the Requirements had been complied with.
17.
Accordingly, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was any prejudice that may have arisen out of the conduct of the applicant and whether it was reasonable for the Tribunal to grant dispensation following the guidance set out above.
18. The Tribunal is of the view that, taking into account that no objection has been received from any of the [NAME], it could not find prejudice to them by the granting of dispensation relating to the remedial roof works, as set out in the application.
19. As stated above, the only issue for the Tribunal to decide is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application does not concern the issue of whether or not service charges will be reasonable or payable.
5 20. The Tribunal grants the applicant retrospective dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of works carried out at 18 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] ("The building").
21. The Tribunal makes the following condition of such dispensation
22. The applicant shall be responsible for formally serving a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on all [NAME] of the flats.
Judge D Brandler
30th November 2021
APPENDIX 1 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 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.
6
APPENDIX 2 RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
20ZA. Consultation requirements: supplementary (1) Where an application is made to the appropriate 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.
Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003. Part 2 - consultation requirements for qualifying works for which public notice is not required Notice of intention 1. (1) The landlord shall give notice in writing of his intention to carry out qualifying works— (a) to [NAME]; and (b) where a [COMPANY] represents some or all of the tenants, to the association. (2) The notice shall— (a) describe, in general terms, the works proposed to be carried out or specify the place and hours at which a description of the proposed works may be inspected; (b) state the landlord’s reasons for considering it necessary to carry out the proposed works; (c) invite the making, in writing, of observations in relation to the proposed works; and (d) specify—
7 (i) the address to which such observations may be sent; (ii) that they must be delivered within the relevant period; and (iii) the date on which the relevant period ends. (3) The notice shall also invite [NAME] and the association (if any) to propose, within the relevant period, the name of a person from whom the landlord should try to obtain an estimate for the carrying out of the proposed works.
Inspection of description of proposed works 2. (1) Where a notice under paragraph 1 specifies a place and hours for inspection— (a) the place and hours so specified must be reasonable; and (b) a description of the proposed works must be available for inspection, free of charge, at that place and during those hours. (2) If facilities to enable copies to be taken are not made available at the times at which the description may be inspected, the landlord shall provide to any tenant, on request and free of charge, a copy of the description. Duty to have regard to observations in relation to proposed works 3. Where, within the relevant period, observations are made, in relation to the proposed works by any tenant or [COMPANY], the landlord shall have regard to those observations.
Estimates and response to observations 4. (1) Where, within the relevant period, a nomination is made by a [COMPANY] (whether or not a nomination is made by any tenant), the landlord shall try to obtain an estimate from the [NAME].
(2) Where, within the relevant period, a nomination is made by only one of the tenants (whether or not a nomination is made by a
8 [COMPANY]), the landlord shall try to obtain an estimate from the [NAME].
(3) Where, within the relevant period, a single nomination is made by more than one tenant (whether or not a nomination is made by a [COMPANY]), the landlord shall try to obtain an estimate— (a) from the person who received the most nominations; or (b) if there is no such person, but two (or more) persons received the same number of nominations, being a number in excess of the nominations received by any other person, from one of those two (or more) persons; or (c) in any other case, from any [NAME].
(4) Where, within the relevant period, more than one nomination is made by any tenant and more than one nomination is made by a [COMPANY], the landlord shall try to obtain an estimate— (a) from at least one person [NAME] by a tenant; and (b) from at least one person [NAME] by the association, other than a person from whom an estimate is sought as mentioned in paragraph (a). (5) The landlord shall, in accordance with this sub-paragraph and sub-paragraphs (6) to (9)— (a) obtain estimates for the carrying out of the proposed works; (b) supply, free of charge, a statement (“the paragraph (b) statement”) setting out— (i) as regards at least two of the estimates, the amount specified in the estimate as the estimated cost of the proposed works; and (ii) where the landlord has received observations to which (in accordance with paragraph 3) he is required to have regard, a summary of the observations and his response to them; and
9 (c) make all of the estimates available for inspection. (6) At least one of the estimates must be that of a person wholly unconnected with the landlord. (7) For the purpose of paragraph (6), it shall be assumed that there is a connection between a person and the landlord— (a) where the landlord is a company, if the person is, or is to be, a director or manager of the company or is a close relative of any such director or manager; (b) where the landlord is a company, and the person is a partner in a [NAME], if any partner in that [NAME] is, or is to be, a director or manager of the company or is a close relative of any such director or manager; (c) where both the landlord and the person are companies, if any director or manager of one company is, or is to be, a director or manager of the other company; (d) where the person is a company, if the landlord is a director or manager of the company or is a close relative of any such director or manager; or (e) where the person is a company and the landlord is a partner in a [NAME], if any partner in that [NAME] is a director or manager of the company or is a close relative of any such director or manager. (8) Where the landlord has obtained an estimate from a [NAME], that estimate must be one of those to which the paragraph (b) statement relates. (9) The paragraph (b) statement shall be supplied to, and the estimates made available for inspection by— (a) [NAME]; and (b) the secretary of the [COMPANY] (if any). (10) The landlord shall, by notice in writing to [NAME] and the association (if any)—
10 (a) specify the place and hours at which the estimates may be inspected; (b) invite the making, in writing, of observations in relation to those estimates; (c) specify— (i) the address to which such observations may be sent; (ii) that they must be delivered within the relevant period; and (iii) the date on which the relevant period ends.
(11) Paragraph 2 shall apply to estimates made available for inspection under this paragraph as it applies to a description of proposed works made available for inspection under that paragraph.
Duty to have regard to observations in relation to estimates 5. Where, within the relevant period, observations are made in relation to the estimates by a [COMPANY] or, as the case may be, any tenant, the landlord shall have regard to those observations. Duty on entering into contract 6. (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), where the landlord enters into a contract for the carrying out of qualifying works, he shall, within 21 days of entering into the contract, by notice in writing to [NAME] and the [COMPANY] (if any)— (a) state his reasons for awarding the contract or specify the place and hours at which a statement of those reasons may be inspected; and (b) there he received observations to which (in accordance with paragraph 5) he was required to have regard, summarise the observations and set out his response to them.
11
(2) The requirements of sub-paragraph (1) do not apply where the person with whom the contract is made is a [NAME] or submitted the lowest estimate.
(3) Paragraph 2 shall apply to a statement made available for inspection under this paragraph as it applies to a description of proposed works made available for inspection under that paragraph.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Window Replacement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Urgent Hot Water Repai…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Building Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Due to Damp
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Urgent Water Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Structural Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Remedial Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Boiler Works
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 are considered urgent.
- There is no prejudice to the leaseholders.
- It is reasonable to grant dispensation.
- Urgent health and safety concerns are involved.
- Dispensation is sought retrospectively but deemed reasonable.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified that 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 requirements for urgent roof repairs due to a leak.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the leaseholders of a building were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and no prejudice arose to the leaseholders.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1, 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the works were urgent and no prejudice arose to the leaseholders.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to bypass consultation requirements if their works are urgent and no prejudice arises.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from the leaseholders mattered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions 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.
