First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to skip the usual consultation process for urgent repairs to a listed building. The repairs were deemed necessary to address leaking issues in several apartments.
⚖️ Legal holding
It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements where there is an urgent need for repairs.
📖 What the law says
The appropriate tribunal can grant permission to skip certain consultation requirements for building works if it finds it reasonable to do so. These consultations typically involve providing tenants with details about proposed works, obtaining estimates, and considering tenants' feedback.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs in a listed building.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to the roof, front elevation, gutters, and channels in a listed Edwardian mansion block. The decision was based on the urgent need for repairs to prevent further damage to the apartments.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2025/0906 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] ([NAME]) Respondents : [redacted] Type of [NAME] : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :
Judge Robert Latham
Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 8 January 2026
DECISION
The Tribunal grants these applications to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 without condition in respect of works to the roof, front elevation, gutters and channels at Harcourt House.
2 The [NAME]
1. By an [NAME] dated 8 October 2025, the Applicant applies for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]. This is a listed Edwardian Mansion Block built in 1907 consisting of 25 flats and a medical centre.
2. There has been an active leak into Apartments 10, 11, 14, 15, 23 and 24 as and when there is rainfall. The managing agents instructed a contractor to attend and they have identified that the issue in flat 14 is likely to be related to inadequate drainage due to misaligned front elevation gutters and channels between levels 4 and 5. The leak into flat 23 is due to roof issues. The only safe way to access the roof to complete full investigations is by erecting scaffolding (there is no direct roof access/safety equipment and as this is a listed building, this cannot be installed). As the leaks into all apartments are going in from the front elevation of the building, scaffolding is required to be able to complete external leak investigations.
3. The only consultation with leaseholders has been as part of the dispensation process. The managing agents have obtained two quotations for the scaffolding installation and have proceeded with Bourne Construction on the basis that they provided the lower quotation and the fact that there is high volumes of water entering the apartments as and when there is rain. The insurers have been notified, but the managing agents do not believe that the remedial works will be covered by insurance.
4. On 5 November 2025, the Tribunal issued Directions. The Directions stated that the Tribunal would determine the [NAME] on the papers, unless any party requested an oral hearing. No party has done so.
5. By 14 November, the Applicant was directed to send to the leaseholders by email, hand delivery, or first-class post: (i) copies of the [NAME] form (excluding any list of respondents’ names and addresses) unless already sent by the applicant to the leaseholder/sublessee; and (ii) the directions. The Applicant was further directed to display a copy of these in a prominent place in the common parts of the property. The Applicant has confirmed that it has complied with this Direction.
6. By 28 November 2025, any leaseholder who opposed the [NAME] was directed to complete a Reply Form which was attached to the Directions and send it both to the Tribunal and to the Applicant. The leaseholder was further directed to send the Applicant a statement in response to the [NAME]. No leaseholder has returned a completed Reply Form opposing the [NAME]. A number of the Respondents have raised queries to which the managing agents have responded.
3 7. The Applicant has provided a Bundle of Documents (23 pages) in support of the [NAME] and the leases in respect of Apartments 14 and 15.
8. Section 20ZA (1) of the Act provides: “Where an [NAME] 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.”
9. The only issue which this Tribunal has been required to determine is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.
10. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant retrospective dispensation from the full statutory consultation requirements. This is justified by the urgent need for the roof works. There is no suggestion that any prejudice has arisen. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant dispensation without any conditions.
11. The Directions make provision for the service of the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal will email a copy of its decision to the Applicant. The Applicant is responsible for serving a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on the Respondents. Judge Robert Latham 8 January 2026
Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made by e-mail to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].
4 If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Emergency Building Repairs Without Leaseholder…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Premium for Collective Enfranchisement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freeholder Granted Dispensation for Damp-Proofing Works Without Full Consul…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Assured Tenancy: First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Carpet Replacement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Building Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects Administrative Fees for Ground Rent 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.
- No prejudice has been shown by lessees.
- It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements.
- The works are necessary to comply with a fire safety enforcement notice.
- The leaseholders cannot demonstrate any prejudice from the lack of consultation.
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 skip the usual consultation process for urgent repairs to a listed building.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the leaseholders of a listed Edwardian mansion block were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements because of the urgent need for repairs to prevent further damage to the apartments.
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 the urgent need for repairs to prevent further damage to the apartments.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing them to proceed with the repairs without the usual consultation process.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also be able to skip the consultation process if they can demonstrate an urgent need for repairs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the leaking issues and the urgency of the repairs were important.
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 seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property repairs and legal processes.
