VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Consultation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent repairs to a flat roof due to water leakage. The repairs were deemed necessary and urgent, allowing the landlord to proceed without consulting the tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent repairswater ingress

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant an exemption from consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so for certain works or long-term agreements. Works qualify if they are done on a building or other premises, and long-term agreements qualify if they last over twelve months. The Secretary of State can create regulations that specify when an agreement is not considered a qualifying long-term agreement. These regulations can require landlords to consult tenants about proposed works or agreements, including providing details, obtaining estimates, and considering tenant feedback.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent roof repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation to the landlord under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to the top floor flat roof to address water ingress.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AN/LDC/2022/0210 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio)

P: PAPERREMOTE Property : 91 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : N/A Respondents : [redacted] [NAME] : N/A Type of [NAME] : Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – dispensation from consultation Tribunal member(s) : Judge [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 31 January 2023

DECISION

2 The tribunal’s summary decision (1) The tribunal determines it is reasonable and appropriate to grant the applicant, dispensation from consultation pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of works to the top floor flat roof to remedy water ingress, carried out by [NAME] in September 2022 in the sum of £5022.00 (inc. VAT).

The [NAME]

1. This is an [NAME] made pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 seeking dispensation from the consultation provisions in respect of works to the top floor flat roof covering the property at 91 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the Property’). The Property comprises three self-contained flats in a converted Victorian proport on the ground first and second floors.

2. In the [NAME] the applicant asserted that water ingress to the top floor flat had been reported. An investigation was carried out and a report prepared by [NAME]. The identified works were subsequently carried out and invoiced on 20/09/2022 in the sum of £5022.00 (including VAT).

3. In accordance with the tribunal’s directions dated 21 November 2022, the applicant confirmed that all [NAME] had been notified of the [NAME] and provided with an opportunity to make any objections to it. No responses were received by any of the [NAME] or any representative either consenting or objecting to the [NAME]. The tribunal’s decision 4. In the absence of any objection to the [NAME] or any evidence of prejudice caused to the [NAME] if the [NAME] was granted, the tribunal determines that, having regard to the urgent nature of the works it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements of s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the flat roof works to the Property.

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 31 January 2023

3

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. 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 considered urgent and necessary.
  • There are no objections raised by tenants.
  • Consultation is impractical due to urgency.
  • The landlord provides valid reasons for dispensation.
  • Conditions on costs are reasonable and met.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The case involves challenges to notices of rent increase based on incorrect figures.
  • The issue pertains to a tenant's admission to alterations and agreement to remove them.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant the landlord dispensation from consultation for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants of the property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and necessary to address water leakage.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The urgency and necessity of the repairs were the most important arguments.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to bypass the consultation process if their repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgency and necessity of the repairs, including reports from a roofing company, mattered.

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.