Landlord Allowed to Bypass Consultation Requirements for Urgent Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a landlord could skip the usual consultation process with tenants for urgent roof repairs. The decision was based on the urgency of the work and the fact that the tenants had been informed.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be exempted from statutory consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to exempt a landlord from statutory consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to obligations set by regulations made by the Secretary of State, which can include providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, and considering tenants' observations.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass the statutory consultation requirements due to urgent roof repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass the statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs, finding that the works were necessary and the leaseholders had been adequately notified.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) [RESPONDENT] : LON/00AX/LDC/2020/0204 Property : [NAME], 80 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Limited
Respondents : [redacted] [NAME] ( Flat 2) [NAME].[NAME] ( Flat 3) [NAME] (Flat 4) Type of Application : For the determination of an application for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements Tribunal Member : Tribunal Judge S.J. [NAME] and venue of Hearing : Decided on the Papers Date of Decision : 18 May 2021
DECISION
Decision of the Tribunal
(1) The Tribunal determines that the statutory consultation requirements shall be dispensed with in respect of repairs to the roof of the property.
Reasons The application 1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) dispensing with the statutory consultation requirements which apply by virtue of section 20 of the 1985 Act in respect of repairs to the roof of the property.
2 2. The application was made on 10 November 2020. It stated that the roof to the property had deteriorated resulting in a flood in flat 1 and that it was at risk of further damage without repair. There was a large hole in the bathroom ceiling of flat 1. The application was made because the works were urgent with winter approaching. The application set out the works which it was proposed to undertake. These included stripping the existing slate, felt and battens, inspecting for rot or other damage, insulating the rafters, fixing new natural slates, the provision of new lead flashing and a new soaker, and repointing defective cement in the chimney stack.
3. According to the application three quotes had already been obtained and shared with the [NAME].
4. Directions were issued on 24 March 2021. They provided that the Tribunal would determine the application on the papers in the week commencing 17 May 2021 unless either party made a request for an oral hearing by 7 April 2021. No such request has been received by the Tribunal and so this determination is made on the papers which have been provided by the parties.
5. The directions also required the Applicant to send to each of the [NAME] a copy of the application and a copy of the directions by 6 April 2021 and to display a copy of both in a prominent place in the common parts of the property. They were also to confirm by 9 April 2021 that this had been done. This confirmation was received by the Tribunal in an e-mail dated 5 April 2021.
6. Under the terms of the directions, any [NAME] who opposed the application were required to complete a reply form and send to the landlord a statement in response to the application by 16 April 2021.
7. No such replies were received by the Tribunal and no other documents have been received from any of the Respondents.
8. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the Appendix to this decision.
9. Neither party requested an inspection and the Tribunal did not consider that one was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to [RESPONDENT] in dispute. The background 10. The property is a converted Victorian town house consisting of four flats across four floors with a commercial property on the ground floor. The Lease 11. By a lease dated 27 April 2006 the Applicant holds the property on a long lease from the freeholder [COMPANY] ([COMPANY]. and also holds the benefit of four leases made between the freeholder and the predecessors in title of the Respondents. Under the terms of the lease the Applicant is
3 responsible for keeping the premises in repair and for observing the landlord’s covenants in the leases to the Respondents.
12. No copy of any of the leases between the freeholder and the Respondents was provided but there was no suggestion from any of the Respondents that the terms of their leases did not permit the Applicant from recovering their costs of repairing the roof of the property. [RESPONDENT]
13. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. The Tribunal is not concerned with the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.
[RESPONDENT] 14. [RESPONDENT] is that the roof has fallen into disrepair resulting in flooding to flat 1 and the creation of a large hole in the ceiling of the bathroom of that flat. The application was made because the works were urgent with winter approaching. The proposed works have been identified as set out above. Three separate quotes have been obtained and shared with the Respondents. The Respondent’s [RESPONDENT]
15. As previously explained, no objections or comments have been received from any [NAME]. The Tribunal’s Decision 16. The Tribunal is satisfied that the consultation requirements should be dispensed with. It is satisfied that the roof of the property is in urgent need of repair.
17. The Tribunal is satisfied that the [NAME] have been notified of the application and bears in mind that there has been no objection from any of them to it. It also bears in mind the limited scope of the issue before it. The purpose of the consultation requirements is to protect tenants from paying for inappropriate works and from paying more than would be appropriate for such works. It follows that the issue when considering dispensation is the extent to which the tenants are prejudiced as regards these two protections. There is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that the [NAME] would suffer any prejudice if this application were granted.
18.
In all the circumstances the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements. Name: Tribunal Judge S.J. [NAME]:
18 May 2021
4 ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL
• The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its decisions by virtue of the rule 36 (2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below.
• If a party wishes to appeal against this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the [RESPONDENT].
• The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.
• If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.
• The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the [RESPONDENT] number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
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
5 (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 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— (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
6 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 each of the tenants, 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 20ZA (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 long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements. (2) In section 20 and this section – “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and
“qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a [NAME], for a term of more than twelve months.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement –
(a) if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or
(b) in any circumstances so prescribed.
(4) In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord
(a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the [COMPANY] representing them,
(b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements,
(c) to invite tenants or the [COMPANY] to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates,
(d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the [COMPANY] in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and
(e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements
(6) Regulations under section 20 or this section
(a) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and
(b) may make different provision for different purposes.
7
(7) Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Permits Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Bypass of Consultation Requirements for Urgent R…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Dispensation for Leaking Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Repairs Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Gas Riser Replacement Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Exemption for Urgent Works Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Exemption for Urgent Heating Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Exemption From Consultation Requirements for Urgent Sewage…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Bypass Consultation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Exemption for Urgent Roof 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 tribunal determined that the statutory consultation requirements should be dispensed with for the roof repairs.
- The roof had deteriorated, causing a flood in one flat and a large hole in its bathroom ceiling.
- The works were urgent because winter was approaching, which justified dispensing with consultation.
- The landlord had already obtained three quotes and shared them with the tenants.
- No objections or comments were received from any of the tenants regarding the application.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass the statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the leaseholders of the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord could bypass the consultation requirements because the roof repairs were urgent and necessary.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the roof repairs were urgent and necessary, and that the leaseholders had been adequately notified.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to bypass the consultation requirements if the repairs are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Quotes for the repairs and evidence of the urgent need for the repairs.
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 a case like this.
