VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Conditions

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent repairs to gutters because the work was considered necessary and urgent.

⚖️ Legal holding

The tribunal may grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so, as per the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Topics

statutory consultation requirementsurgent works

Provisions

section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can decide to waive some or all consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements for urgent gutter repairs, finding it reasonable to do so.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted an application for dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent works to repair gutters at a cost of £2,007.20. The works were deemed urgent due to leaks and the need for scaffolding.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2024/0058 Property : 128 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] ([NAME]) 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 : 15 May 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 the gutters.

2

3

The [NAME]

1. On 15 February 2024, the Applicant’s [NAME] applied for retrospective dispensation from the statutory duty to consult in respect of urgent works to repair the gutters at a cost of £2,007.20 which were carried out in December 2023. The property is a late [NAME] property which has been converted to create seven flats.

2. In May 2023, the [NAME] had noted the faulty and leaking gutters. The works were deferred as scaffolding was required. It had been intended to carry out the necessary works as part of a larger programme of external repairs. On 5 July 2023, the [NAME] served a Stage 1 Notice of Intention and on 13 September 2023, a Notice of Estimates. However, due to a shortage of funds, it was decided to defer the majority of the works. On 28 November 2023, the managing agent informed the tenants that they intended to proceed with the works to the as these were now urgent.

3. On 28 March 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.

4. By 5 April 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 [NAME]/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.

5. On 4 April 2024, the Applicant confirmed that the relevant documents had been sent to the leaseholders on 28 March and had been displayed in the common parts on 4 April.

6. By 19 April 2024, any [NAME] 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 [NAME] was further directed to send the Applicant a statement in response to the [NAME]. No [NAME] has returned a completed Reply Form opposing the [NAME].

7. The Applicant has provided a Bundle of Documents (50 pages) in support of the [NAME]. It has also provided a copy of the lease for the flat on the second floor front.

8. Section 20ZA (1) of the Act provides:

4 “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 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.

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 15 May 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. 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.

5 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:

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 tribunal found it reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements due to the urgent need for the works.
  • No leaseholder returned a form opposing the application, indicating no objection to dispensing with consultation.
  • There was no suggestion that any leaseholder suffered harm because the consultation requirements were not followed.
  • The managing agent informed tenants about the urgent works to the gutters in November 2023.
  • The faulty and leaking gutters had been noted in May 2023, and works were deferred as scaffolding was required.

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 repairs to gutters.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation from consultation requirements, and the leaseholders were notified but did not oppose the application.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements due to the urgent nature of the repairs needed.

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 urgency of the repairs and the lack of opposition from the leaseholders were the key arguments.

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

The decision was in favour of the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might be able to bypass consultation requirements if their repairs are deemed urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the notice of intention and estimates, and the confirmation of the leaky gutters requiring urgent attention.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property disputes.

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.