Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to skip the usual consultation process for urgent repairs to a balcony and ceiling. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent further water damage and ensure the safety of the building.
⚖️ 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 unforeseeable, necessary, and urgent.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant a request to bypass consultation requirements for certain works if it determines that it is reasonable to do so.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted dispensation to the landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation to the landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent repairs to a balcony and ceiling, finding the works unforeseeable, necessary, and urgent.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AN/LDC/2025/0719 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COUNSEL] – D&G Block Management Respondents : [redacted] : N/A Type of [NAME] : Section 20ZA – Dispensation from Consultation Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 30 June 2025
DECISION
2 The tribunal’s decision (i) The tribunal grants the applicant dispensation from dispensation in
respect of the additional works required and incidental to the repair of a
balcony and ceiling below pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and
Tenant Act 1985.
The [NAME] 1. The landlord/applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory
consultation requirements pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and
Tenant Act 1985, in respect of repairs to a balcony and the ceiling below.
The [NAME] is said to be urgent in order to prevent further water
penetration. The property 2. The subject property at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the property’) comprises a 2015
warehouse conversions into 12 residential flats. The property is
divided into 2 blocks with the top floor flats in both blocks contain
balconies at the rear of the property.
Background
3. Section 20 notices were previously sent to leaseholders in 2023 with the
intended works started in December 2025. However, further works were
identified as being required, specifically works to remedy the discharge
of water into the block through one of the balconies and subsequent
remedial works as identified by [NAME] [NAME] of [NAME] in her emailed letter dated 23 January 2025.
The hearing
4. Neither party requested an oral hearing and this [NAME] was decided
on the digital bundle of documents comprising 70 pages. [NAME] objected to the [NAME] on the grounds of (i) costs (ii) a
lack of urgency on the part of the applicant to carry out the s.20
works and (iii) the absence of a claim on the 10 year warranty/insurance.
The tribunal’s reasons
5. The tribunal accepts the original s.20 works were delayed until
September 2024 due to the slow collection of the necessary funds. The
tribunal also accepts that these further works were not identifiable until
commencement of the exploratory work I or about September 2024. The
tribunal also accepts the written explanation of Ms [NAME] as to need
3
for and urgency of these works in order to protect the integrity of the
property and address health and safety concerns.
6. The tribunal finds that the concerns raised both directly and indirectly
by the [NAME] relate mainly to the issue of the cost of these
additional works. However as stated in the tribunal’s directions dated
20 May 2025 ‘This [NAME] does not concern the issue of
whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or
payable.’ Consequently, any challenge to the cost of these works must
be made by way of the appropriate [NAME].
7. In all the circumstances the tribunal considers these additional works to
the and associated with the balcony were unforeseeable, necessary and
urgent. Further, the tribunal find the [NAME] who has objected to
dispensation being granted, has not identified any relevant prejudice
that would be caused as result of the applicant landlord’s failure to
consult on these additional works, [RESPONDENT] v
[NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14.
8. Therefore, the tribunal finds it is reasonable and appropriate to grant the
dispensation from consultation sought by the applicant, in respect of the
addition works required to one balcony and associated remedial works.
Name: Judge Tagliavini
Date: 30 June 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].
4 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Under s.20ZA
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation in First-tier Tribunal Ca…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent BMS Upgrade
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs in Multi-Story Buildin…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Permission for Urgent Repairs Due to Wa…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Ordered to Pay Landlord's Costs in Right to Manage Application
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Boiler Flue Replacement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Works
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 additional repair works were not identifiable until exploratory work began in September 2024.
- The additional works were necessary and urgent to protect the property's integrity and address health and safety.
- The additional works to the balcony were unforeseeable, necessary, and urgent.
- The leaseholder who objected did not show any specific harm from the landlord's failure to consult on these additional works.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The leaseholder's objection regarding a lack of urgency by the applicant to carry out the initial works was not accepted.
- The leaseholder's objection regarding the absence of a claim on the 10-year warranty/insurance was not accepted.
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 skip the usual consultation process for urgent repairs to a balcony and ceiling.
Who was involved?
The landlord applied for dispensation, while leaseholders were the respondents.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the landlord, accepting the need for urgent repairs to prevent further water damage and ensure the safety of the building.
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 argument that mattered most was the necessity and urgency of the repairs to prevent further water damage and ensure the safety of the building.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also be able to obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if their repairs are deemed necessary and urgent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included a surveyor's report detailing the need for repairs and the urgency of the situation.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from the First-tier Tribunal 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 legal disputes.
