VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Permission for Urgent Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs at a period property in Leeds. The repairs were essential to ensure the property remained safe and habitable for residents.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the work is urgent and necessary to maintain the property's habitability and safety.

Topics

Service chargesConsultation requirementsUrgent repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZALandlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to obligations placed on landlords to consult tenants regarding certain works or agreements.

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 dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs at a period property in Leeds. The repairs were deemed necessary to maintain the property's habitability and safety.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : MAN/OODA/LDC/2021/0003

Property : 67 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY]

Respondents : [redacted]

Annex A)

Type of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA

Tribunal Member : [NAME] (Tribunal Judge)

Date of determination : 16 April 2021

Date of Decision : 20 April 2021

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] ([NAME])

2

Application

1. [RESPONDENT] applies to the Tribunal under Section 20ZA of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) for dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Act and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) in respect of roof work requiring scaffolding at 67 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (the Property).

2. The Respondents are [NAME] of apartments at the Property.

Grounds and Submissions

3. The application was received by the Tribunal on 21 January 2021.

4. The Applicant is the Freeholder and Successor to the Lessor of the leases of the apartments at the Property. The Respondents are the Lessees or Successors to the leases of the apartments at the Property.

5. On 18 February 2021 [NAME] [APPELLANT] made directions which required the Applicant to serve a copy of the application documents on each Respondent. The directions provided that in the absence of a request for a hearing the application would be determined upon the parties’ written submissions and evidence.

6. The Property is described as a period property built circa 1900 converted into 9 apartments.

7. The Applicant’s statement reports that work was required in respect of a roof leak into apartment 6 “which was causing considerable damage to the internal areas and affecting the electrics, meaning the property was without electric during periods of rain.”

8. Further information provides details of the work required to track and trace, scaffolding for access to complete inspection and repairs. A quotation was received. It is stated that the work has successfully been completed.

9. Copy correspondence to [NAME] dated 9 December 2020 gave notice of the work and opportunities to inspect a description and make observations on the proposals. Additional correspondence indicates urgency in the work and the application for dispensation.

10. The Applicant has provided a copy of the inspection report and quotation and confirmation that this application has been served. An explanation of the work is given with reasons for urgency “The works were instructed in order to ensure the property remained habitable and safe for the residents and to mitigate the loss for insurance purposes.”

11. The Tribunal did not receive submissions from a Respondent nor a request for an oral hearing.

12. The Tribunal convened without the parties to make its determination on 16 April 2021.

3

Law

13. Section 18 of the Act defines “service charge” and “relevant costs”.

14. Section 19 of the Act limits the amount payable by the lessees to the extent that the charges are reasonably incurred.

15. Section 20 of the Act states:- “Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements

Where this Section applies to any qualifying works…… the relevant contributions of tenants are limited……. Unless the consultation requirements have either:- a. complied with in relation to the works or b. dispensed with in relation to the works by …… a leasehold valuation tribunal. This Section applies to qualifying works, if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount”.

16. “The appropriate amount” is defined by regulation 6 of The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) as “……. an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any tenant being more than £250.00.”

17. Section 20ZA(1) of the Act states:- "Where an application is made to a Tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works ……..….. the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements."

Tribunal’s Conclusions with Reasons

18. I considered the written evidence accompanying the application.

My conclusions are:-

19. It is not necessary for me to consider at this stage the extent of the service charges that would result from the works payable under the terms of the Respondents’ leases. If and when such is demanded and if disputed, it may properly be the subject of a future application to the Tribunal.

20. I accept from the details of the roof defect, work described and the observed consequences of water ingress that it was necessary for repairs to commence without delay. The lack of repair had an impact on the health, safety, utility and comfort of occupiers and visitors to the apartments at the Property.

21. Although no formal consultation has been completed, I have not identified a specific prejudice to them in the circumstances. A quotation was provided. Dispensation from consultation requirements does not imply that the resulting service charge is reasonable.

22. I conclude it reasonable in accordance with Section 20ZA(1) of the Act to dispense with the consultation requirements, specified in Section 20 and contained in Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987).

4 23. Nothing in this determination or order shall preclude consideration of whether the Applicant may recover by way of service charge from the Respondents any or all of the cost of the work undertaken or the costs of this application should a reference be received under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Order

24. The Applicant is dispensed from complying with the consultation requirements in respect of the work specified in the application.

[NAME] Tribunal Judge 16 April 2021

5

Annex A

[NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

Mr [NAME]

[NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

Mr [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] Mr [NAME]

[NAME]

[NAME] & [NAME] [COMPANY]

📊 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 work is considered urgent and necessary for safety.
  • The work is deemed essential to maintain the property's habitability.
  • The work is required to ensure the overall safety and maintenance of the building.
  • The work is urgent and necessary for the health, safety, and comfort of the property.
  • The work is urgent and necessary for safety and well-being.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified as leading to a decision 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 Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and residential leaseholders of apartments at a period property in Leeds.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the landlord because the repairs were urgent and necessary to maintain the property's habitability and safety.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA, and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The urgency and necessity of the repairs to maintain the property's habitability and safety.

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 may also be able to bypass consultation requirements if their repairs are urgent and necessary to maintain the property's habitability and safety.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgency and necessity of the repairs, including a description of the roof defect, work description, and observed consequences of water ingress.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving landlord and tenant disputes.

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.