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 the usual consultation process for urgent roof repairs. The decision was made because the repairs were deemed necessary and no leaseholders objected.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the tribunal finds it reasonable.

Topics

statutory consultation requirementsurgent repairs

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZAService Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant a landlord dispensation from consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so, specifically for urgent roof repairs. The consultation requirements refer to the process set by regulations for landlords to consult tenants before undertaking certain works or entering into long-term agreements.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs. The decision was based on the lack of objections from leaseholders and the urgency of the repairs.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference:

LON/00BG/LDC/2020/0226 P

HMCTS code:

P: PAPERREMOTE

Property:

41 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

[NAME]

Respondents:

[redacted] [COUNSEL]:

None advised

Type of [NAME]:

To dispense with the statutory consultation requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal members:

Judge Pittaway

Date of decision:

11 February 2021

2

Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the applicant and not objected to by any respondent. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because no-one requested a hearing and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents to which the tribunal was referred are in an electronic bundles of 32 pages (consisting of the [NAME], the Directions issued by the tribunal dated 22 December 2020 , a copy lease, statement of case, the letter sent to the leaseholders about the works and a quotation and invoice form [NAME]) and the e mail of 11 February 2021 received from the applicant’s representative . The decision made is set out below.

DECISION The Tribunal grants to [APPELLANT] dispensation from statutory consultation in respect of the subject works, namely repairs to the roof of the Property. The applicant should send a copy of this decision by e mail, hand delivery or first class post to each of the respondents and display a copy in a prominent position in the common parts of the Property, together with an explanation of the leaseholders’ appeal rights within seven days of receipt. This decision does not affect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction upon any future [NAME] to make a determination under section 27A of the Act in respect of the reasonableness and/or the cost of the work. The [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) for dispensation from consultation in respect of the repairs to the roof of the Property which were commenced on 29 October 2020. The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003 provide that consultation requirements are triggered if the landlord plans to carry out qualifying works which would result in the contribution of any tenant being more than £250. The works are identified in the [NAME] as the provision of scaffolding with the relevant licence from [NAME], stripping off specified slates and hip and ridge tiles, the [NAME] of liquid primer and top coat waterproof to front box gutter and inside wall linings, the supply and fitting of new breathable membrane and tanalised battens

3

to the stripped roof areas, the supply and fitting of slates to the newly felted and battened roof, te supply and fitting of new ridge and hip tiles and the removal of debris from the site. The cost of the works the subject of the [NAME] exceed £250, as the total cost given in the [NAME] is £7,025.

2. By directions dated 22 December 2020 (the “directions”) the tribunal directed the applicant send each of the leaseholders the [NAME] and the tribunal’s directions and display the same in the common parts of the Property, confirming to the tribunal that it had done so. The applicant’s representative confirmed to the tribunal on 11 February 2021 that it had sent a copy of the [NAME] and directions to each leaseholder on 22 December 2020 and that by 22 January 2021 the same were also displayed in the common hallway of the Property.

3. The directions required any leaseholder who opposed the [NAME] should tell the tribunal. If they opposed the [NAME] they should send the tribunal and the applicant’s representative a statement responding to the [NAME] together with any documents they wished to rely on. The tribunal has received no such statements of objection/ support and the applicant confirmed in its statement of case that it received no objections from any of the leaseholders.

4. The directions provided that the tribunal would decide the matter on the basis of written submissions unless any party requested a hearing. No such request has been made. The applicant’s case

5. In the [NAME] the Property is described as a mid-terrace late Victorian house constructed over ground and two upper floors, each floor being converted into a self- contained unit.

6. The applicant states in its [NAME] that roof works carried out by [COMPANY] in December 2018, in the sum of £2,634, were not successful. [APPELLANT] [NAME] therefore reimbursed these costs to the leaseholders.

7. Following a report of water ingress to [NAME] C in October 2019 [NAME] was appointed and it confirmed roof repairs were required. A quote from that company was forwarded to all the leaseholders who were made aware that because of the urgency of the works (because of the damage being caused to [NAME] C) an [NAME] would be made to the tribunal to dispense with the consultation procedure. No objections were received from the leaseholders. The [NAME] and statement of case state that the [NAME] offered to pay 50% of the overall cost.

4

8. The [NAME] states that although no section 20 notices were served on the leaseholders [NAME] notified them of the proposed cost of the work and received no objections. The Respondents’ case 9. No respondent objected to the [NAME]. Determination and Reasons

10. The [NAME] incorrectly named the [NAME] as the applicant (in its capacity as the [NAME]’s agent) rather than the [NAME] itself. Pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 the tribunal substitutes [APPELLANT] as the respondent in substitution for [NAME].

11. Section 20ZA(1) of the Act provides: “Where an [NAME] 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.”

12. The whole purpose of section 20ZA is to permit a landlord to dispense with the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Act if the tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable for them to be dispensed with.

13. The Tribunal has taken account the decision in [COMPANY] v [NAME] [2013] UKSC 14 in reaching its decision.

14. There is no evidence before the tribunal that the respondents will be prejudiced by the failure of the applicant to comply with the consultation requirements. The tribunal is therefore satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to the repair works

15. Whether the works are carried out to a reasonable standard and at a reasonable cost, and how the liability to pay such cost are not matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the tribunal in relation to this present [NAME]. This decision does not affect the tribunal’s jurisdiction upon any future [NAME] to make a determination under section 27A of the Act in respect of the reasonableness and /or cost of the works. Name: Judge Pittaway Date: 11 February 2021.

5

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.

2. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

3. 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.

4. 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.

📊 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 landlord demonstrates that the situation requires reasonable dispensation from consultation.
  • The landlord shows that the works are urgent and there is no evidence of prejudice to tenants.
  • The landlord proves that it is reasonable to dispense from statutory consultation requirements.
  • The landlord convinces the tribunal that the circumstances justify reasonable dispensation.
  • The landlord successfully argues that potential breaches of statutory consultation are minor compared to the need for dispensation.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified as leading to a decision against the claimant based on the provided cases.)

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 bypass the usual consultation process for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements due to the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from leaseholders.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the repairs were urgent and necessary, and there were no objections from leaseholders.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be able to bypass the consultation process if the repairs are urgent and necessary, and there are no objections from leaseholders.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence and documents related to the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from leaseholders 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 seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

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.