VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Flat Roof Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements because of urgent flat roof repairs needed to stop water from entering the building. This decision helps landlords address urgent maintenance issues without unnecessary delays.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent worksflat roof repairs

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 certain works or long-term agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and outlines the consultation requirements that can be dispensed with.

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 a landlord dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent flat roof repairs to prevent water ingress into residential parts of the property. The tribunal found the works sufficiently urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AN/LDC/2024/0010 Property : 91 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondents : [redacted] Mr [NAME] and Mrs [NAME] (Flat 3) (2) Mr [NAME] (Flat 2) (3) [NAME] [COUNSEL] & Mr [COUNSEL] (Flat 1) Representative : N/A Type of [NAME] : Dispensation from consultation – section 20ZA of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 27 March 2024

DECISION

2

Decision of the tribunal 1. The tribunal grants the [NAME] dispensation from all of the statutory consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the urgent works to the flat roof that were required and carried out to remedy the ingress of water into the residential parts of the premises at 91 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the Property’) in the sum of £1188.00 (inclusive of VAT).

________________________________________________ The [NAME] 2. The [NAME] has applied for dispensation from the statutory

consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant

Act 1985 in respect of roof works required to the flat following

reports of water ingress. 3. Although a s.20 Notice of Intention had been served on the

[NAME] in about July 2023, this was no longer relied upon by the

applicants due to the urgent nature of the works. The background 4. The subject Property comprises a mid-terrace Victorian property converted into three self-contained residential units. In July 2023, the landlord’s managing agents received a report of water entering the above property and causing damage internally from the rear of the flat roof.

5. Contractors, [COMPANY] were instructed and provided a quotation for the required works. The cost however for the required works, were above the legal section 20 threshold for this property. Due to the nature of the repairs the quotation received from Hamilton Roofing was accepted and the necessary works were carried out in order to prevent further damage to this property. The hearing 6. As neither party requested an oral hearing, the tribunal determined the

[NAME] on the documents provided by the applicant in a digital

bundle of 60 pages. No objections or other representations were

received from the respondents.

3

Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 5. The tribunal is satisfied the respondent [NAME] have been notified of this [NAME] and have chosen to make any representations in respect of it.

6. In reaching its decision the tribunal took into account the documentary evidence provided by the applicant.

7. In the absence of any objection from any [NAME] identifying any substantive prejudiced caused if dispensation from consultation is granted, the tribunal finds the works were of a sufficient urgency to require remedy and that it is reasonable and appropriate to grant the dispensation sought; [NAME] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 27 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 [NAME] for permission must be made 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.

4 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 works are urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.
  • The works address a significant safety issue.
  • Failure to consult promptly would cause more prejudice than benefit.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The application was submitted outside the required time frame.
  • Issues that could have been raised earlier are considered an abuse of process.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent flat roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and leaseholders of a mid-terrace Victorian property converted into three self-contained flats.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the works were urgent and necessary to prevent further damage, thus granting dispensation.

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 urgency and necessity of the repairs to prevent further damage were the central arguments.

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 may also be able to obtain dispensation if their repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of water ingress and the urgency of the repairs were crucial.

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 property law.

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.