VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to skip consulting tenants about urgent roof repairs because of safety concerns and the risk of water damage to the building.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consulting tenants if the works are necessary and urgent.

Topics

tenancy disputesurgent repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZALandlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant a landlord dispensation from consulting tenants regarding certain works or agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted a landlord dispensation from consulting tenants about urgent roof repairs due to missing or damaged tiles causing safety issues and risk of water damage.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/ 45UH/LDC/2020/0034

Property

:

10 [ADDRESS],[POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[APPELLANT]

Respondents

:

[redacted] Mr [COUNSEL] Mrs [COUNSEL]

:

-

Type of Application

:

To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge Tildesley OBE

Date and Venue of Hearing

:

Determination on Papers

Date of Decision

:

22 June 2020

DECISION

2 The Application

1. The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act.

2. The Applicant explains that works are required to replace the ridge and roof tiles at the property as they are currently missing or damaged due to recent high winds. This has caused debris to fall from the roof causing a safety issue to the residents and members of pubic who pass the property. The Applicant further explains that if the missing tiles are not replaced there would be a high risk of water ingress causing damage to individual flats and the integrity of the building. The Applicant states that no consultation has taken place because of the urgency of the works.

3. The Applicant supplied photographs of the work that had been done to the roof and a copy of an invoice in the sum £1,120.00 from [COMPANY] dated 7 June 2020.

4. The Application for dispensation was received on 13 May 2020.

5. On 18 May 2020 the Tribunal directed the Applicant to serve the application and directions on the [NAME]. On 28 May 2020 the Applicant confirmed that it had complied with the Tribunal’s direction.

6. The Tribunal directed the [NAME] to return a pro-forma to the Tribunal by 2 June 2020 indicating whether they agreed or disagreed with the application and whether they consented to a determination on the papers. The [NAME] made no representations.

7. The Applicant served the Tribunal with a hearing bundle of documents on 16 June 2020. . Determination

8. The Tribunal is satisfied from the application and the documents that the works repairing the ridge tiles and replacing the roof tiles were necessary, and urgent. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant did not have time to consult because of the risks of falling debris and of water ingress causing damage to individual flats and the fabric of building.

9. The Tribunal infers from the [NAME]’ failures to respond that they did not object to the Application.

10. The Tribunal, therefore, dispenses with the consultation requirements in respect of the works to the roof.

11. The Tribunal’s decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the works. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of those works are

3 reasonable or payable. If a [NAME] wishes to challenge the reasonableness of those costs, then a separate application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 would have to be made.

12. The Tribunal directs the Applicant to serve the decision on the [NAME] and confirm that it has done so within 7 days.

4

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

Due to the Covid 19 pandemic, communications to the Tribunal MUST be made by email to [EMAIL]. All communications must clearly state the Case Number and address of the premises.

📊 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 found that the roof repairs were necessary and urgent.
  • The landlord did not have time to consult due to the risks of falling debris.
  • The landlord did not have time to consult due to the risk of water damage to flats and the building.
  • The tribunal inferred that the tenants did not object to the application because they failed to respond.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant the landlord dispensation from consulting tenants about urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of a property in West Sussex were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were necessary and urgent, posing safety risks and potential water damage.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the works were necessary and urgent due to safety concerns and risk of water damage was crucial.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to bypass tenant consultation if their repairs are deemed necessary and urgent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs of the roof and an invoice for the repair work were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal must seek permission from 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 such cases.

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.