VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Permission for Urgent Repairs Without Consultation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to make urgent repairs to a property without consulting the tenants, as long as the repairs wouldn't cause any harm to the tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispense with consultation requirements if the works are urgent and there is no prejudice to the tenants.

Topics

tenancy disputesurgent repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant a request to bypass consultation requirements for certain works or long-term 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 to the landlord to undertake urgent repairs without consulting tenants.

📜 Headnote Official document

The landlord applied for dispensation to undertake urgent repairs without consulting tenants. The Tribunal granted dispensation, finding the work was urgent and no prejudice would result to the tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: BIR/47UC/LDC/2019/0002

Property

: [ADDRESS], 2 to 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent

: [redacted] as set out in the Schedule

Type of Application : Dispensation Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Members of Tribunal : Judge D [NAME] B.Sc. (Est. Man.) FRICS

Date of Decision : 22 July 2019

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

2 Background

1. By application dated 9th May 2019 the Applicant has applied for dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements provided for by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

2. The qualifying works are “replace rotten timber underneath verge ends on gables and then retile and repoint verge ends. Also to replace rotten timber on gable ends that look like hold timbers but are just timber-clad”.

3. As at the date of the application “work has been instructed but not yet started”. The Applicant was redecorating the exterior of the Property and scaffolding has been erected giving access to all areas. The qualifying works “need to take place whilst scaffolding is currently up and before the woodwork can be redecorated”.

4. On 15th May 2019 the Tribunal issued Directions.

5. By letter dated 16th May 2019 the Tribunal sent copies of the application and Directions to all [NAME].

6. The Tribunal has considered Statement of Case dated 31st May 2019 prepared by the Applicant.

7. None of the [NAME] have submitted a Statement to the Tribunal in accordance with Directions. No objections to the application have been received by the Tribunal from any of the [NAME].

8. Neither party has requested an oral hearing.

Inspection

9. The Tribunal inspected the Property on the morning of 19th July 2019. The [NAME] were notified of the inspection by letter dated 13th June 2019. 10. As at the date of inspection the work had been completed and scaffolding taken down.

Deliberation

11. The Tribunal has followed the approach to be adopted on an application under section 20ZA(1) to dispense with consultation requirements set out by Lord [NAME] in [APPELLANT] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14.

12. The Applicant has previously undertaken a section 20 consultation exercise in relation to the costs of painting and decorating the whole of the exterior of the Property. Scaffolding was erected in connection with that work.

13. However, once work started it became apparent that further urgent work was required to the timber and roof. In particular timber work was required under the gable ends and also work to the roof to include repointing the verge ends.

14. We find that the Applicant has acted reasonably in applying to dispense with consultation requirements to ensure that the further work identified could be carried out without the need for scaffolding hire over a longer period.

15. Prior to commencing the additional work, the Applicant wrote to all [NAME]. The Tribunal has seen a copy of a letter dated 30th April 2019 in which the Applicant clearly sets out the additional work required and its intention to apply for dispensation. None of the [NAME] has objected.

3 16. In addition, the Applicant has also obtained an alternative quote from [APPELLANT] which, inclusive of VAT, comes to a little over £11,000. The Applicant has therefore acted reasonably in deciding to proceed with the quote of £8,700 from [NAME] who is not VAT registered.

17. In the absence of any objections from the [NAME] we are satisfied that no prejudice will result to [NAME] in granting this application.

18. The parties should note that the Tribunal has only been asked to determine the question of dispensation with the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act. The Tribunal has not been asked to determine payability or reasonableness of the amount of service charges payable by any of the [NAME] under section 27A of the 1985 Act.

Decision

19. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with all of the consultation requirements in relation to qualifying works and accordingly grants dispensation under section 20(1)(b) and section 20ZA (1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

20. The qualifying works are those set out in the undated “Specification inclusive of quotation” prepared by [APPELLANT] annexed to the Applicant’s Statement of Case.

D Jackson Judge of the First-tier Tribunal

Either party may appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) but must first apply to the First-tier Tribunal for permission. Any application for permission must be in writing, stating grounds relied upon, and be received by the First-tier Tribunal no later than 28 days after the Tribunal sends this written Decision to the party seeking permission.

Schedule of [NAME]

[NAME] (2, 3 and 5) [NAME] and [NAME] (4) [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] (6) [NAME] and [NAME] (7) [NAME] and [NAME] (8) [NAME] and [NAME] (9) [NAME] and [NAME] (10)

📊 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 works are deemed urgent and necessary.
  • There is no prejudice to the tenants.
  • The works are required to prevent structural damage.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No significant factors identified that went against the claimant in these 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 make urgent repairs without consulting the tenants.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of the property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the landlord could proceed with the repairs because they were urgent and would not cause any harm to the tenants.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent further damage to the property.

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 be able to get permission to make urgent repairs without consulting their tenants if the repairs are necessary and won't cause harm.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgency of the repairs and the lack of any objections from the tenants mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party may appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) but must first apply to the First-tier Tribunal for permission.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property repairs and tenant rights.

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.