Freeholder Granted Permission for Urgent Repairs Without Consultation
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a freeholder to skip consulting leaseholders about urgent roof repairs because the repairs were deemed necessary and no leaseholders objected. The decision was made by Judge H Carr and a person.
⚖️ Legal holding
The tribunal may dispense with consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to determine whether to waive consultation requirements for certain works or agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and 'qualifying long term agreement' as an agreement lasting more than twelve months. The consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State, which can include providing details of proposed works, obtaining estimates, considering tenant observations, and giving reasons for actions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements due to urgent repairs needed to prevent further property damage.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted an application to dispense with the consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs, finding the works reasonable and unopposed by the leaseholders. Judge H Carr and Mr S Wheeler presided over the case.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BE/LDC/2023/0065 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio)
; Paper Property : 64 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondents : [redacted] Representative : N/A Type of [NAME] : To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works Tribunal members :
Judge H [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 13th September 2023
DECISION
Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing
2 This has been a remote hearing on the papers which was not objected to by the parties. A face-to-face hearing was not held all issues could be determined on paper. The documents considered by the Tribunal are contained in a hearing bundle prepared by the Applicant comprising 42 pages, the contents of which have been noted. Decision of the tribunal 1. The Tribunal determines to exercise its discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements contained in Schedule 4 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003. The [NAME]
2. Mr [NAME] of [NAME] on behalf of the freeholder of the premises, [RESPONDENT], applied on 14th March 2023 under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, for dispensation from the consultation requirements contained in Schedule 4 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.
3. The [NAME] indicated that the works that were the subject of the dispensation [NAME] were works carried out to repair a leak which was causing water ingress to the property.
4. The cost of the works was £1210.00.
5. The reason why dispensation was sought in relation to the works and the additional works is that the leaks to the property were in urgent need of repair as the water ingress was causing property damage and distress to the occupiers. Procedure 6. The Tribunal held a case management review of this matter on 7th July 2023 and issued directions on the same date.
7. In those directions the Tribunal determined that the matter be determined remotely on the basis of the papers provided during the week commencing 11th September 2023.
8. The directions gave an opportunity for any party to request a hearing. No hearing was requested so the matter has proceeded based on the papers provided for the tribunal. Determination
3 The background 9. The property comprises three flats on the lower ground, ground and first and second [NAME] of the building.
10. The chronology of events and evidence provided indicates as follows: (i) [NAME] were made aware by the owner of the top [NAME] [NAME] of an issue with the roof which was allowing water ingress and causing damage. (ii) The [NAME] agent appointed a roofing company, [NAME], to investigate and advise on necessary repairs. (iii) The height of the building requires the use of a scaffolding tower increasing the costs of the works. The roofing company provided an estimate for works totalling £1210.00. (iv) [NAME] decided to proceed with the roofing works to minimise the damage in the property and costs. The period for consultation would have resulted in more damage to the property which would have led to a large insurance claim and ultimately higher insurance premiums. (v) [NAME] notified all the leaseholders and enclosed correspondence in support of this assertion. [NAME] state that no objections have been received in respect of the work. (vi) The [NAME] have not reported any further issues, indicating that the work carried out was carried out to a good standard. The Law 11. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under s.20ZA of the Act. The wording of s.20ZA is significant. Subs (1) 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 agreements, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements’ (emphasis added).
4 12. The Supreme Court in the case of [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14 is the leading authority on how the statutory provisions are to be interpreted. The tribunal’s decision 13. The tribunal determines to grant the [NAME]. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 14. In the light of the evidence provided to the tribunal, the clear urgency of the works and the absence of evidence that the Respondents objected to the works, it is reasonable to grant the [NAME] sought.
15. Both parties should note that this determination does not concern the issue of whether the service charge costs demanded in connection with the works are reasonable or indeed payable. The Respondents are able, if it appears to them to be appropriate, to make an [NAME] under s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as to reasonableness and payability.
Name: Judge Carr Date: 13th September 2023
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 to the First- tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. 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]. 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
5 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).
6 Appendix of relevant legislation
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 18 (1) In the following provisions of this Act "service charge" means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent - (a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or the landlord's costs of management, and (b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs. (2) The relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a [NAME], in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable. (3) For this purpose - (a) "costs" includes overheads, and (b) costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period. Section 19 (1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period - (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provisions of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly. (2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise. Section 27A (1) An [NAME] may be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to - (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable,
7 (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) An [NAME] may also be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs and, if it would, as to - (a) the person by whom it would be payable, (b) the person to whom it would be payable, (c) the amount which would be payable, (d) the date at or by which it would be payable, and (e) the manner in which it would be payable. (4) No [NAME] under subsection (1) or (3) may be made in respect of a matter which - (a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment. Section 20 (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate tribunal . (2) In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement. (3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement—
8 (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount. (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount. (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or [NAME], whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.] Section 20B (1) If any of the relevant costs taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge were incurred more than 18 months before a demand for payment of the service charge is served on the tenant, then (subject to subsection (2)), the tenant shall not be liable to pay so much of the service charge as reflects the costs so incurred. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if, within the period of 18 months beginning with the date when the relevant costs in question were incurred, the tenant was notified in writing that those costs had been incurred and that he would subsequently be required under the terms of his lease to contribute to them by the payment of a service charge. Section 20C (1) A tenant may make an [NAME] for an order that all or any of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with proceedings before a court, residential property tribunal or the Upper Tribunal, or in connection with arbitration proceedings, are
9 not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the tenant or any other person or persons specified in the [NAME]. (2) The [NAME] shall be made— (a) in the case of court proceedings, to the court before which the proceedings are taking place or, if the [NAME] is made after the proceedings are concluded, to a county court; (aa) in the case of proceedings before a residential property tribunal, to that tribunal; (b) in the case of proceedings before a residential property tribunal, to the tribunal before which the proceedings are taking place or, if the [NAME] is made after the proceedings are concluded, to any residential property tribunal; (c) in the case of proceedings before the Upper Tribunal, to the tribunal; (d) in the case of arbitration proceedings, to the arbitral tribunal or, if the [NAME] is made after the proceedings are concluded, to a county court. (3) The court or tribunal to which the [NAME] is made may make such order on the [NAME] as it considers just and equitable in the circumstances. Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Schedule 11, paragraph 1 (1) In this Part of this Schedule “administration charge” means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent which is payable, directly or indirectly— (a) for or in connection with the grant of approvals under his lease, or applications for such approvals, (b) for or in connection with the provision of information or documents by or on behalf of the landlord or a person who is party to his lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, (c) in respect of a failure by the tenant to make a payment by the due date to the landlord or a person who is party to his lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, or (d) in connection with a breach (or alleged breach) of a covenant or condition in his lease. (2) But an amount payable by the tenant of a dwelling the rent of which is registered under Part 4 of the Rent Act 1977 (c. 42) is not an administration charge, unless the amount registered is entered as a variable amount in pursuance of section 71(4) of that Act.
10 (3) In this Part of this Schedule “variable administration charge” means an administration charge payable by a tenant which is neither— (a) specified in his lease, nor (b) calculated in accordance with a formula specified in his lease. (4) An order amending sub-paragraph (1) may be made by the appropriate national authority. Schedule 11, paragraph 2 A variable administration charge is payable only to the extent that the amount of the charge is reasonable. Schedule 11, paragraph 5 (1) An [NAME] may be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether an administration charge is payable and, if it is, as to— (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) The jurisdiction conferred on the appropriate tribunal in respect of any matter by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) is in addition to any jurisdiction of a court in respect of the matter. (4) No [NAME] under sub-paragraph (1) may be made in respect of a matter which— (a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment. (6) An agreement by the tenant of a dwelling (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination— (a) in a particular manner, or
11 (b) on particular evidence, of any question which may be the subject matter of an [NAME] under sub-paragraph (1).
📊 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 Water Booster Set Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation From Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Exemption for Fire Safety Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Fire Safety Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Chimney Repairs
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 are urgent and necessary for safety.
- There is a high risk of imminent major failure in the property.
- The works are reasonable and there are no objections from the leaseholders.
- It is reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements due to the nature of the works.
- The works are critical for residents' safety.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It allowed the freeholder to skip consulting the leaseholders about urgent roof repairs.
Who was involved?
The freeholder and the leaseholders of the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the application because the repairs were urgent and necessary, and there were no objections from the leaseholders.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 and Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the repairs were urgent and necessary, and that there were no objections from the 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 might be able to skip consulting leaseholders if the repairs are urgent and necessary, and there are no objections.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing the urgency and necessity of the repairs, and confirmation that no leaseholders had objected.
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?
Yes, it is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property repairs and consultations.
