VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Dispensation for Roof Inspection Without Consultation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a landlord could bypass the usual consultation process with tenants when setting up scaffolding for roof inspections. The decision was based on the lack of objections from tenants and the need to ensure the safety of the building.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements under certain circumstances.

Topics

consultation requirementsdispensationroof inspection

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works or agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for scaffolding erection to inspect the roof.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord's application for dispensation from the requirements to consult leaseholders under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing the landlord to erect scaffolding for roof inspection without prior consultation.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AE/LDC/2023/0248. Property : Flats A, B & C, [ADDRESS], London [POSTCODE]. Applicant : [redacted] Representative : Ms. [COUNSEL] (Ref: 30859) [RESPONDENT]. Respondent : [redacted] A) Mrs. [NAME]. [NAME] (Flat B) Ms. [COUNSEL] (Flat C) Representative : In person. [COMPANY] : [COMPANY]. Type of application : Application seeking dispensation from the requirements to consult under S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Tribunal members : Tribunal Judge Aileen Hamilton-Farey Venue : Remote. Date of decision : 14 March 2024.

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The exercises its’ discretion and grants the applicants dispensation from the requirements to consult leaseholders in relation to the erection of scaffolding at the premises to facilitate roof inspection. The application 1. By an application dated 2 October 2023, the applicant seeks dispensation from the requirements to consult leaseholders under S.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to the erection of scaffolding at the premises, to facilitate the inspection of the roof and to ascertain any necessary works. At the time of the application the cost of the scaffolding was not known. Directions:

2. Directions were issued by the tribunal on 6 December 2023. These required any party who objected to the application to provide a statement of case. No objections to the application have been received by the applicants or tribunal. In addition, none of the parties objected to the matter being dealt with on the papers and no-one requested an oral hearing.

3. The tribunal has therefore continued on the basis of a paper determination using the bundle of documents provided by the applicants’ representatives. The bundle:

4. The applicants’ bundle was received by the tribunal. This contained a copy of the original application form, a copy of the lease, and correspondence from the scaffolding contractor (including a method statement, a risk assessment, and a price for the work). It appears from the bundle that the cost to erect the scaffolding (and strike it) is £4,200.00 plus VAT. The consideration and decision:

5. The tribunal has considered the papers provided, it appears that the [NAME] have not objected to the work, and indeed it appears that they requested the application be made to the tribunal in any event.

6. The tribunal is entitled to take into consideration the lack of objection by the leaseholders, and in doing so, reaches the conclusion that

3 dispensation from the requirements to consult in relation to this contract should be granted.

7. None of the [NAME] raised the issues of prejudice as per [NAME] v [NAME], and the tribunal considers that there is none in this instance.

8. For the benefit of the [NAME], this application only concerns whether dispensation from the requirements to consult should be granted, the decision to grant dispensation, does not mean that the costs are reasonable or have been incurred and leaseholders’ rights in this respect at preserved.

Tribunal:

Date: [NAME].

14 March 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 application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office 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 case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

4 If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application 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 leaseholders did not object to the application for dispensation.
  • The leaseholders did not claim they would be harmed by the lack of consultation.
  • The leaseholders requested that the application be made to the tribunal.
  • The tribunal was able to proceed with a paper determination as no oral hearing was requested.

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 with tenants for setting up scaffolding for roof inspections.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, and the tenants were represented in person.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because there were no objections from the tenants and the work was necessary for the safety of the building.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The lack of objections from the tenants was a key factor in the decision.

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 also be able to obtain dispensation if there are no objections from tenants and the work is necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included correspondence from the scaffolding contractor, including a method statement, a risk assessment, and a price for the work.

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 involving legal matters.

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.