VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to skip the usual consultation process for urgent roof repairs. The repairs were deemed necessary to stop water damage to the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispense with consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary to prevent damage.

Topics

urgent repairsdispensation from consultation

Provisions

section 20ZA(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements if the tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.

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 Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent roof repairs to prevent further damage to the property. Judge Robert Latham ruled on 13 May 2019.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AP/LDC/2019/0050 Property : 6 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondents :

[redacted] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] of Application : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Tribunal Member :

Judge Robert Latham

Date and venue of Hearing : 13 May 2019 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 13 May 2019

DECISION

The Tribunal grants this application to dispense unconditionally with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

2 Reasons 1. By an application made on 27 March 2019, the Applicant, [NAME], seeks dispensation with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) in respect of the works described below. The Applicant stated that it was content for the application to be dealt with on the papers. No Respondent has requested an oral hearing. 2. [ADDRESS] is a three storey Victorian mid-terrace town House which has been converted into four self-contained flats. In January 2019, the roof was leaking. On 15 March, a Stage 1 Notice of Intention was served. This was before scaffolding was erected and an inspection identified the extent of the works required. The roof is still leaking, causing damage to the top floor flat.

3. On 29 March 2019, the Tribunal sent a copy of the application to the tenants. On 2 April, the Tribunal issued Directions. On 3 April, the Tribunal sent these Directions to the parties.

4. Any tenant who opposed the application was directed to complete a Reply Form which was attached to the Directions and return it to the tribunal. No tenant has opposed the application. 5. [APPELLANT], the tenant of the ground floor flat has been in correspondence with the [NAME]. However, this relates to roof repairs which were executed in 2013 and the contractor which had been used on that occasion. He does not suggest that the proposed works are not required.

6. Section 20ZA(1) of the Act provides: “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.”

7. 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 application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

8. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation from the subsequent stages of the consultation requirements. This is justified by the urgent need for the works to abate the water penetration and to prevent further damage to the flats. There is no

3 suggestion that any prejudice has arisen. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant dispensation without any conditions.

Judge Robert Latham, 13 May 2019

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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application 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 making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 roof was leaking and causing damage to the top floor flat, showing an urgent need for repairs.
  • The works were urgently needed to stop water from entering and prevent further damage to the flats.
  • No tenant opposed the application for dispensation from consultation requirements.
  • There was no suggestion that any tenant suffered harm because of the lack of consultation.

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?

The landlord and 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?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA(1), was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The urgency and necessity of the repairs to prevent further damage was the central argument.

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 skip the consultation process if their repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgent need for repairs and the potential for further damage was likely considered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions 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 proceedings.

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.