First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to carry out urgent roof repairs without consulting tenants first. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent further damage.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works if it is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to works on a building or premises, and the consultation requirements are detailed rules set by the Secretary of State.
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 First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Tribunal considered the urgency and necessity of the repairs, granting dispensation.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Reference : MAN/00CM/LDC/2019/0007
Property : 9 & [ADDRESS], Washington, Tyne and Wear [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondents : [redacted] [NAME] of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA
Tribunal Members : Ms [NAME] Ms [NAME] date : 2 May 2019
Date of Decision : 7 May 2019
_______________________________________________
DECISION ____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
1
Summary Decision
1. The Tribunal gives dispensation from the consultation requirements.
Application
2. This application has been made by [APPELLANT] for dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’) with regard to works to the plywood deck to the roof to stop water ingress. The Applicant considers that the works are needed to be carried out urgently.
3. Directions were issued on 6 March 2019. Those directions made it clear that the application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs resulting from any such works are reasonable or indeed payable and it will be open to lessees to challenge any such charged by the Applicant.
4. Further to the Directions the Applicant provided bundles of documents. The Respondents did not provide any statement in response.
The Law
5. Section 20 of the 1985 Act limits certain service charges unless the consultation requirements in the section are complied with or dispensed with under section 20ZA is received. Section 20ZA provides:
(1) Where an application is made to the appropriate 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.
The Facts
6. The case is concerned with two flats, 9 & [ADDRESS] that make a single building. While undertaking remedial works to the external timber staircase to the building the contractors found that the plywood deck of the roof to the staircase was rotten and needed to be replaced. The application includes photographs of the rotten timber.
2
7. In their application the Applicants explained why the works were urgent and dispensation.
‘We seek dispensation as the roof is partially stripped and will be susceptible to further damage from the wind and rain causing additional decay of the timbers below. The roof is more susceptible to damage from the wind as the cement verge has been removed which protects the roof tiles from uplift. There is also greater risks of slippage occurring on the staircase with possible increased dampness.’
8. The Respondents were notified of the works and the cost of them, by e- mail dated 6 February. The e-mail stressed the urgency of the work. Although both Respondents replied to the e-mails, neither objected to the works in principle or them being dealt with urgently. As noted above neither have responded to this application.
Decision
9. For the reasons set out in the Application we consider that it is reasonable to give dispensation.
C Hunter Tribunal Judge 2 May 2019
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drain Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Boiler Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs at Green View Court
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Water Supply Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation 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 Conditional Dispensation for Urgent Cladding Wor…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
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 shows that the works are urgent and necessary.
- The landlord demonstrates that the works are deemed sufficiently urgent.
- The landlord proves that the works are urgent and reasonable.
- The landlord confirms that there is no prejudice to the leaseholders.
- The landlord establishes that the works are urgent and there is no harm to leaseholders.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified that went 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?
It decided to grant dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.
Who was involved?
A landlord and two tenants were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and necessary.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the repairs were urgent and necessary was the most important.
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 get dispensation for urgent repairs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the damaged roof and explanations of the urgency of the repairs were important.
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?
Yes, it is always recommended to get legal advice from a solicitor for cases like this.
