Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Consulting Leaseholders
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a landlord could carry out urgent roof repairs without consulting leaseholders if the leaseholders did not object and were not substantially prejudiced. This decision applies to situations where urgent repairs are necessary to prevent damage.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation for urgent works if the leaseholders have not objected and have not suffered substantial prejudice.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it deems 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 over twelve months. The 'consultation requirements' refer to rules set by the Secretary of State regarding providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenant suggestions, 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 for urgent roof repairs under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for the landlord to carry out urgent roof repairs without prior notice to leaseholders, finding that the leaseholders had not objected and had not suffered substantial prejudice.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :
LON/00AY/LDC/2025/0834
Property : 462-[ADDRESS] & 2-12 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] ([COUNSEL]) Respondents : [redacted] Representative : N/A Type of application : Dispensation for consultation – s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 4 November 2025
DECISION
2
Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants the applicant the dispensation from consultation
sought in respect of the roof works carried out in 2025 in the
approximate sum of £15,302.07 inc. VAT. The application 1. The applicant seeks dispensation from consultation pursuant to s.20ZA
of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 The background 2. The property which is the subject of this application is a mixed use, 4-
storey building with commercial premises on the ground floor and
residential flats above with 4 live/work studios on the top floor. 3. The roof was discovered to be continuing to leak despite previous patch
repairs. The applicant took the decision to carry more extensive works
to rectify the problem with water ingress. No notice was given to the
respondent leaseholders of the intended works which have been carried
out and completed. 4. The respondents were subsequently notified of this application for
dispensation from consultation. The hearing 5. Neither party requested an oral hearing and therefore the tribunal
determined the application using the 112 digital bundle provided by the
applicant. 6. The respondents initially indicated to the applicant they might
object to the application The respondents stated they (might) object t0;
(i) the scope of the works;
(ii) the necessity or timing of the works;
(iii) the cost of the works (which is not relevant to this application). 7. However, this preliminary letter/email to the applicant was not followed up with any formal objection being sent to the tribunal.
3 The decision 8. The tribunal is satisfied that urgent works to remedy the water ingress
into the roof were required. The tribunal is also satisfied the respondents have not objected to the application and/or have failed to show they have been caused any substantial prejudice by the absence of any consultation prior to the works being carried out; [COMPANY] v Benson & others [2011] EWCA Civ 38.
9. Therefore, the tribunal grants the dispensation form consultation sought by the applicant.
Name:
Judge Tagliavini Date: 4 November 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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The application should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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
4 number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. 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 10 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Financial Penalty to £500
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Freeholder to Vary Leases for Sinking Fund and I…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Freeholder Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Invalid Rent Increase Notice
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 was satisfied that urgent works were needed to fix water leaking into the roof.
- The leaseholders did not formally object to the application for dispensation.
- The leaseholders failed to show they were significantly harmed by the lack of consultation.
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's request for dispensation from consulting leaseholders for urgent roof repairs.
Who was involved?
The landlord and leaseholders of a mixed-use building with commercial premises and residential flats.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord was entitled to dispensation because the leaseholders did not object and were not substantially prejudiced.
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 leaseholders had not objected and had not suffered substantial prejudice was crucial.
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 be able to obtain dispensation for urgent repairs if leaseholders do not object and are not substantially prejudiced.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objection from leaseholders was 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 recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving dispensation from consultation.