First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent repairs to fix a leaking gutter. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent further damage to the property.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if urgent repairs are necessary to prevent further damage.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant an exemption from consultation requirements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so, particularly when urgent repairs are needed to prevent further damage.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent gutter repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent gutter repairs to prevent further damage to the property.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/00ML/LDC/2023/0166
Property
:
42 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
[NAME]
Respondent: [redacted]
[NAME] (Ground Floor Flat) [COUNSEL] (Flat 2)
Representative
:
Type of Application
:
To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Tribunal member
:
D Banfield FRICS, Regional Surveyor
Date of Decision
:
16 January 2024
DECISION
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of gutter repairs.
In granting dispensation, the Tribunal makes no determination as to whether any service charge costs are reasonable or payable.
The Applicant must send copies of this determination to the lessees.
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. This retrospective application was received on 4 December 2023.
2. The Applicant explains that,
The property consists of an original semi-detached house constructed circa 1890 that has been converted into two self-contained flats over ground and two upper floors with the additional level presumably made up of Velux units to the rear elevation.
3. Further,
In November 2022 a report was received of water damage and damp within the ground floor flat . contractors attended at the time and advised that there is a section of the guttering which is missing and it is causing water to seep through the property. As water was penetrating every time it rained we were unable to consult with the [NAME] and proceeded with the works to avoid further rnterna [sic] damage.
We would like to request a dispensation of Section 20 following urgent gutter repairs that we had to organise to minimise any further damage.
4. The Tribunal made Directions on 12 December 2023 which it sent to the Lessees together with a form for them to indicate to the Tribunal whether they agreed with or opposed the application and whether they requested an oral hearing. If the [NAME] agreed with the application or failed to return the form they would be removed as a Respondent although they would remain bound by the Tribunal’s Decision.
5. The Tribunal received one response from the lessees which agreed to the Application. No requests for an oral hearing were made. The matter is therefore determined on the papers in accordance with Rule 31 of the Tribunal’s Procedural Rules.
6. Before making this determination, the papers received were examined to determine whether the issues remained capable of determination without an oral hearing and it was decided that they were, given that the application remained unchallenged.
The Law
7. The relevant section of the Act reads as follows:
S.20 ZA Consultation requirements:
3 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 matter was examined in some detail by the Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v [NAME]. In summary the Supreme Court noted the following. a. The main question for the Tribunal when considering how to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with section 20ZA is the real prejudice to the tenants flowing from the landlord’s breach of the consultation requirements. 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. The Applicant’s case is set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 above.
4 Determination
10. 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 those requirements. Guidance on how such power may be exercised is provided by the leading case of [NAME] v [NAME] referred to above.
11. No objections have been received from the lessees and in these circumstances I am prepared to grant conditional dispensation.
12. The Tribunal therefore grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of gutter repairs.
13. In granting dispensation, the Tribunal makes no determination as to whether any service charge costs are reasonable or payable.
14. The Applicant must send copies of this determination to the lessees.
D Banfield FRICS 16 January 2024
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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation with Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Chimney Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Exemption for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Lift Repairs Without Identifying Prejudice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Essential Water Ingress Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Major Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation in First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Major 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 landlord needed to perform urgent gutter repairs to prevent further water damage to the property.
- The lessees did not object to the application for dispensation from consultation requirements.
- The Tribunal found it reasonable to grant dispensation from the consultation requirements.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided to grant dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs to fix a leaking gutter.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the tenants were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 20 and Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were 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.
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 prevent further damage.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence of water damage and the necessity of the repairs mattered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision 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 get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
