First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent roof repairs to prevent water damage. The decision was based on the immediate need to address the problem.
⚖️ Legal holding
It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements in urgent situations.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant an application to dispense with the statutory duty to consult if it finds it reasonable to do so in the circumstances. The consultation requirements refer to providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenant suggestions for additional estimates, considering tenant observations, and giving reasons for certain actions.
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 an application for dispensation from the statutory duty to consult in respect of urgent works to repair a leaking roof. The Tribunal found it reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements due to the urgency of the situation.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BG/LDC/2024/0099 Property : Flats 33-38 [NAME], 394-396 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COUNSEL] ([COUNSEL]) Respondents :
[redacted] : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :
Judge Robert Latham
Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 29 July 2024
DECISION
The Tribunal grants this [NAME] to dispense retrospectively with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 without condition in respect of urgent works to repair the roof to prevent water penetration.
2 The [NAME]
1. By an [NAME], dated 28 March 2024, the Applicant applies for retrospective dispensation from the statutory duty to consult in respect of urgent works to repair the roof to prevent water penetration. The cost of the works will exceed the statutory threshold of £250 per flat. 2. [NAME] is a residential property comprising two purpose-built dwellings (53 and 54) and six blocks of self-contained flats which were constructed in about 1985. The original buildings date from around 1891. The site is a converted factory and is made up of a total of 54 properties. This [NAME] relates Block B, which includes Flats 33-38 [NAME] who pay into their own schedule for works on their block.
3. There has been an ongoing roof leak affecting Flat 38, the top floor flat. If the leak was not dealt with swiftly, there was a risk of greater damage to the flat and the fabric of the building. On 15 January 2024, the Applicant instructed a contractor, [APPELLANT[NAME], to attend the flat and cut a hole in the ceiling to see if they could find the source of the leak from below, rather than erecting scaffolding. On 13 February, the contractor reported that they had identified where the leak was coming in from and that they would need to install a scaffold tower.
4. The Applicant obtained two quotes for the works. [APPELLANT[NAME] quoted £1,950 + VAT; [APPELLANT] quoted £1,450 (inc VAT). The Applicant decided to proceed with the more expensive quote as the contractor could do the work more quickly. On 28 March, the Applicant informed the leaseholders of the steps that they were taking.
5. On 2 May 2024, 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.
6. By 23 May 2024, 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; (ii) if not already provided in the [NAME], a brief statement to explain the reasons for the [NAME]; and (iii) the directions. The Applicant was further directed to display a copy of these in a prominent place in the common parts of the property. On 16 May, the Applicant confirmed that it had complied with this Direction.
7. By 20 June 2024, 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
3 [NAME]. No leaseholder has returned a completed Reply Form opposing the [NAME].
8. The Applicant has provided a Bundle of Documents (47 pages) in support of the [NAME]. It has also provided a copy of the lease for Flat 38.
9. 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.”
10. 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.
11. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant retrospective dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements. This is justified by the urgent need for the works. There is no suggestion that any prejudice has arisen. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant dispensation without any conditions.
12. 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 29 July 2024
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.
4 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]. 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 Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Communal Electricity Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repair Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Works Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation From Consultation Requirements Due To Urgent …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Safety Works Consultation Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Major Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Conditions
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
- Urgent situations require immediate action.
- Statutory consultation requirements can be waived if compliance is impracticable.
- Cases involving urgent safety concerns allow dispensation.
- Structural repairs in urgent circumstances justify dispensation.
- Urgent need for works justifies dispensation of consultation requirements.
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 the leaseholders of the affected flats 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 to repair the roof.
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 to repair the roof to prevent water damage.
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 might be able to bypass the usual consultation process if they can show that the repairs are urgent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the urgent need for repairs, including quotes and reports from contractors, mattered.
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 like this.
