VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Tenant Consultation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to carry out urgent roof repairs without consulting the tenants, due to the urgency of the work and the lack of opposition from the tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from section 20 consultation requirements under certain circumstances.

Topics

dispensation from consultation requirementsurgent roof repairs

Provisions

section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant permission to a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for certain works or long-term 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 for urgent roof repairs without consulting tenants.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to a landlord for urgent roof repairs at a multi-flat property without consulting the tenants, citing section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2021/0309 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : P: PAPERREMOTE Property : 212 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COUNSEL] Respondents : [redacted] other lessees as per the [NAME] : N/A Type of [NAME] : For the determination of dispensation – section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 2 February 2022

DECISION

2

Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has not been objected to by the parties. The form remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face-to- face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents that the tribunal was referred to are in a bundle of 85 pages, the contents of which are noted. The order made is described at the end of these reasons. Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants dispensation from the section 20 consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to the applicant, for the carrying out of urgent roof works at the subject premises, The [NAME]

1. The Applicant seeks dispensation pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) in respect of urgent roof works required at the subject premises. The hearing 2. The tribunal determined the [NAME] on the bundle of documents provided by the applicant. The background 3. The property which is a building containing four flats over the basement, ground, first and second floor, 4. The applicant is the managing agent of the subject property and urgent works to remedy the ingress of water through the roof have been identified by [NAME] (Hons) FCABE MRICS. Consequently, estimates for works of repair were obtained and said to cost in the region of £4,000 (including professional fees), of which each lessee is required to contribute a 25% share.

5. All four lessees were said to support the [NAME] and single line statements were received from [NAME] ([NAME]), [NAME] ([NAME]), [NAME] ([NAME]) and [NAME] ([NAME]) to this effect. The tribunal’s decision and reasons

3 6. The tribunal determines that it is reasonable and appropriate to grant the [NAME] dispensation form the consultation requirements of section 20. The tribunal is satisfied urgent works of repair to the roof are required and that the [NAME] is not opposed by any of the lessees of the four flats in the subject property. Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 2 February 2022

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 landlord seeks dispensation for urgent works.
  • The landlord provides notification to tenants and allows objections.
  • The works are minor and the consultation would cause unnecessary delays.
  • The works are deemed urgent and necessary for resident safety and security.
  • The consultation requirements are waived if there is no prejudice to the tenants.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)

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 carry out urgent roof repairs without consulting the tenants.

Who was involved?

The landlord of a multi-flat property and the tenants of the property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation based on the urgency of the repairs and the fact that there was no opposition from the tenants.

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 argument that mattered most was the urgency of the repairs and the lack of opposition from the tenants.

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 might also be able to obtain dispensation for urgent repairs if there is no opposition from the tenants.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Estimates for the cost of repairs and statements from the tenants supporting the application 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.