VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Consultation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to carry out urgent roof repairs without consulting tenants because the repairs were necessary to fix water leaks in a flat. The court found that the work was urgent and would not cause harm to the tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and there is no identified prejudice to tenants.

Topics

roof repairsstatutory consultationurgent works

Provisions

s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

Under this section, a landlord can apply to a tribunal for permission to bypass consultation requirements related to certain works or long-term agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to consult with tenants or recognized tenants' associations before making changes.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation to the landlord from consulting tenants due to urgent roof repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to a landlord from consulting tenants for urgent roof repairs to prevent water ingress into a flat. The tribunal considered the urgent nature of the works and the lack of identified prejudice to tenants.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AU/LDC/2025/0757 Property : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] [NAME] : N/A Type of [NAME] : S.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – dispensation from consultation Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 27 August 2025

DECISION

2 The tribunal’s decision (1) The tribunal grants the applicant the dispensation sought in respect

of all works required in respect of the roof repairs that were carried out

to remedy the ingress of water into Flat 4 at the property known as 10

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

The [NAME] 1. The applicant has applied for dispensation pursuant to s.20ZA of the

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the statutory consultation

requirements in respect of the roof repairs required to remedy the

ingress of water into Flat 4 at the property known as 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the property’).

Background

2. The property was originally a semi-detached house constructed circa

1870 that has since been converted into four self-contained flats

constructed over basement, ground and three upper floors with Flat 1

located over the basement level and having its own front door accessed

along the left hand elevation by way of a secured gate; the remaining

three flats are accessed through a central staircase.

The hearing

4. Neither party requested an oral hearing and the determination was made

by the tribunal using the digital bundle of 55 pages provided by the

applicant.

5. The applicant confirmed that a copy of the [NAME] and the tribunal’s

directions had been provided individually to the respondents by email

and by being left in the communal area However, no representations

were received from the respondents objecting to the [NAME].

6. The applicant provided a number of invoices dated variously in May

2025 from [NAME] showing the nature and extent of the work

carried out. Further invoices included the provision and cost of

scaffolding required for access to the roof which was provided by [NAME].

3 The tribunal’s reasons

9. In the absence of any objection to the [NAME], the urgent nature

of the works, and the absence of any identified prejudice caused to the

respondents, the tribunal considers it appropriate to grant the

dispensation sought in respect of all roof works required to remedy the

ingress of water in to Flat 4; [COMPANY] v Benson

and others [2013] UKSC 14 & [2013] UKSC 54.

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 27 August 2025

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] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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. 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 11 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 granted the landlord's request because no one objected to the application.
  • The works were urgent, which supported granting the dispensation.
  • The tribunal found no harm was caused to the tenants by the works.
  • The landlord provided invoices showing the work done and its cost.
  • The landlord confirmed the application and directions were sent to the tenants.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The court allowed the landlord to carry out urgent roof repairs without consulting tenants.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of the building were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the landlord could proceed with the repairs without consulting tenants because the work was urgent and would not cause harm to the tenants.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The court applied s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The urgency of the repairs and the lack of identified prejudice to tenants were the most important arguments.

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

The decision was for the landlord who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to get dispensation from consultation requirements if their work is urgent and there is no identified prejudice to tenants.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Invoices for the repair work and the nature and extent of the work were important.

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 like this.

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.