First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repair Dispensation
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for urgent roof and chimney repairs. The repairs were deemed necessary to address severe water damage and ensure the safety and habitability of the property.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements if it deems it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and outlines the types of consultation requirements that can be prescribed by regulations.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof and chimney repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent roof and chimney repairs, finding that the works were necessary to prevent further water ingress into the residential accommodation.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/43UE/LDC/2020/0047
Property
:
[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
[NAME]
Respondent: [redacted]
:
Mr [COUNSEL] of Application
:
Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Tribunal Member
:
[NAME] Surveyor
Date of Decision
:
19 August 2020
DECISION
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the roof and chimney repairs as described in the application.
In granting dispensation, the Tribunal makes no determination as to whether any service charge costs are reasonable or payable.
2 Background
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 the roof leak is directly affecting the residential accommodation, mainly flat 2, which makes the unit uninhabitable and requires immediate attention.
3. The Tribunal made Directions on 6 July 2020 indicating that the application would be determined on the papers in accordance with Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013 unless a party objected. Attached to the directions was a form for the Respondents to indicate whether they agreed with or objected to the application. It was further indicated that if the application was agreed to or no response was received the lessees would be removed as Respondents.
4. With the exception of [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY], each of the original respondents indicated agreement with the application. Accordingly those parties have been removed a respondents in this matter. [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] remains the sole Respondent.
5. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with any statutory consultation requirements. This decision does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.
6. References to page numbers in the bundle are shown as [*]
The Law
7. The relevant section of the Act reads as follows:
20ZA Consultation requirements: (1) Where an application 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.
8. The power to dispense with consultation was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14. In summary the Supreme Court decided the following:
a. The main question for the Tribunal when considering how to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with section 20ZA (1) is the real prejudice to the tenants flowing from the landlord’s breach of the consultation requirements.
3 b. The financial consequence to the landlord of not granting a dispensation is not a relevant factor. The nature of the landlord is not a relevant factor. c. Dispensation should not be refused solely because the landlord seriously breached, or departed from, the consultation requirements. d. The Tribunal has power to grant a dispensation as it thinks fit, provided that any terms are appropriate. e. The Tribunal has power to impose a condition that the landlord pays the tenants’ reasonable costs (including surveyor and/or legal fees) incurred in connection with the landlord’s application under section 20ZA (1). f. The legal burden of proof in relation to dispensation applications is on the landlord. The factual burden of identifying some “relevant” prejudice that they would or might have suffered is on the tenants. g. The court considered that “relevant” prejudice should be given a narrow definition; it means whether non-compliance with the consultation requirements has led the landlord to incur costs in an unreasonable amount or to incur them in the provision of services, or in the carrying out of works, which fell below a reasonable standard, in other words whether the non- compliance has in that sense caused prejudice to the tenant. h. The more serious and/or deliberate the landlord's failure, the more readily a Tribunal would be likely to accept that the tenants had suffered prejudice. i. Once the tenants had shown a credible case for prejudice, the Tribunal should look to the landlord to rebut it. Evidence
9. In their statement of case [52 et seq] the Applicant states that on 2 February 2020 they received a report of two heavy leaks into the bedroom of flat 2. Contractors were instructed to investigate, and an inspection report and schedule of works was submitted by the contractor on 5 and 12 May 2020
10. On 18 June 2020 a further leak was reported and the bedroom in Flat 2 became uninhabitable.
11. The Lessees were informed in a notice of intention to carry out works dated 15 June 2020. [Appendix 5].
12. Photographs showing water damage in Flat 2 are included in the bundle [Appendix 1].
13. [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] made representations in a letter of 20 July 2020 to [NAME] [NAME] [51].
4
14. They gave the following reasons for objecting to the application
1. We have only been given 2 working days to consider and respond to this matter.
2. No detailed plan of work has been provided informing [NAME] as to the extent of works that need to be carried out.
3. No quotations have been provided to the [NAME] to give an indication of the cost.
4. No budget has been discussed with the [NAME] giving us an indication of the maximum outgoing for these specific works 5. There is only £900.01 in the reserve fund. No clarification has been given if this will be enough to cover the works that have been requested.
6. No clarification has been given to [NAME] as to their portion of costs they will have to bear. Such as, will ground floor [NAME] be liable for the same amount as top floor [NAME]?
Determination
15. Dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 of the Act may be given where the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.
16. The Tribunal finds the following facts:
17. (1) the proposed works to the roof and chimney are s urgent to prevent further water ingress into Flat 2. The bedroom of flat 2 is presently uninhabitable. 2)[NAME] has been commissioned to carry out the repairs and has supplied a detailed schedule of the works.
3) A [NAME] has reviewed the schedule of works and formed the view that that they are reasonable and appropriate. 4)Four of the five [NAME] have not objected to the application
18. The Tribunal considers that the steps taken by the Applicant have met some of the concerns expressed by the [NAME] who objects to the application.
19. Given the above findings the Tribunal is satisfied that the [NAME] would not suffer relevant prejudice if dispensation is granted.
20. The Tribunal therefore grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the roof and chimney repairs as described in the application.
5 21. In granting dispensation, the Tribunal makes no determination as to whether any service charge costs are reasonable or payable.
6
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].
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.
1. .
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Roof Repairs Approved Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Bypass Consultation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs to Prevent Water Ingress
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Hearing
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Roof Repairs: Dispensed From Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Following Storm …
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 roof and chimney repairs were urgent to prevent further water damage to a flat.
- Flat 2 was uninhabitable due to the water damage, requiring immediate attention.
- A contractor provided a detailed schedule of the necessary repair works.
- A surveyor reviewed the work schedule and found the proposed repairs to be reasonable and appropriate.
- Most of the lessees agreed with the application for dispensation from consultation.
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 and chimney repairs.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent further water damage.
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 the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent further water damage was crucial.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord, allowing them to bypass consultation requirements.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also be able to bypass consultation requirements if the repairs are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs showing water damage and reports from contractors were important evidence.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to 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.
