VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs at a multi-a person property in Liverpool, as the repairs were deemed necessary and there was no harm to the tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and there is no prejudice to the leaseholders.

Topics

tenancyconsultation requirementsurgent repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant an exemption from consultation requirements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so, particularly when dealing with urgent works where there is no harm to the leaseholders.

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 to a landlord for urgent roof repairs at a multi-flat property in Liverpool, finding that the works were necessary and there was no prejudice to the leaseholders.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : MAN/00BY/LDC/2020/0056

Property : 15 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Applicant’s Representative : [APPELLANT]

Respondents : [redacted]

[ADDRESS] [NAME] & Ms [NAME] 2, [ADDRESS] [NAME] 3, [ADDRESS] of Application : Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA

Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge Professor Caroline Hunter Tribunal Member Ian Jefferson

Date and venue of : 30 March 2021

Hearing

Date of Decision : 30 March 2021

Date of Determination : 1 April 2021

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

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 roof on 15 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the building’). The applicant considers that the works needed to be carried out urgently.

3. Directions were issued on 14 January 2021. 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 a bundle 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 [APPELLANT] term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.

The Facts 6. The building, a converted house, comprises 3 flats on one each of 3 stories of the building. The management of the building is contracted out by the applicant freeholder to [APPELLANT]. An issue with a main roof has resulted in [NAME] 3 (leaseholder Ms [NAME]) experiencing continuous water ingress in her living room from some time. From the correspondence provided, the issue has been live for some time – see the email from [NAME] to [NAME] dated 18 February 2020.

7. In August 2020 quotes for the works from two contractors – including scaffolding, capping the chimney, re-bedding and re-pointed the ridge tiles and renewing the lead work - were received by [COMPANY]. A Section 20, part 1 notice was issued to the leaseholders on 6 November 2021. However given the urgency of the works, [COMPANY] instructed the contractor with the lower price to undertake the works. The works have now been completed.

2

8. In their application the Applicants explained why the works were urgent and why the work undertaken and dispensation sought: ‘As the property was getting worse, we were receiving several calls a week from the [NAME] who was very distressed with the situation.’

9. As noted above none of the leaseholders have responded to this application. There is no evidence that the leaseholders have been prejudiced by the failure to comply with section 20 (see [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14).

Decision 10. For the reasons set out in the application we consider that it is reasonable to give dispensation.

Rights of appeal 11. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office, which has been dealing with the case.

12. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application the decision.

13. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, that 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.

14. 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.

Tribunal Judge Professor C Hunter 30 March 2021

📊 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 works were urgent because a leaseholder was experiencing continuous water ingress in her living room.
  • The leaseholder was very distressed by the situation, leading to multiple calls a week.
  • The leaseholders did not provide any statement in response to the application.
  • There was no evidence that the leaseholders were harmed by the failure to consult.
  • The contractor with the lower price was instructed to undertake the works.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

A landlord and multiple leaseholders at a multi-flat property in Liverpool.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the landlord could bypass the consultation requirements because the repairs were urgent and there was no prejudice to the leaseholders.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1,985 sections 20 and 20ZA.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The urgency of the repairs and the lack of prejudice to the leaseholders.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

For the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to bypass consultation requirements if the repairs are urgent and there is no prejudice to the leaseholders.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Correspondence showing the urgency of the repairs and the lack of prejudice to the leaseholders.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, but only if permission is granted by the First-tier Tribunal.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for specific cases.

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.