VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to skip the consultation process for urgent repairs to a leaking skylight. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent further damage to the communal area. Judge Prof Richard Percival granted the dispensation.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements where urgent repairs are necessary.

Topics

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985Consultation RequirementsUrgency

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to obligations set by regulations for landlords to consult tenants before making certain changes or conducting works.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs to a leaking skylight, preventing further damage to the communal area. Judge Prof Richard Percival ruled that the urgency justified skipping the consultation process.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2021/0013 HMCTS Code : P: PAPER REMOTE Property : 19 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] represented by [NAME]) [APPELLANT] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] [RESPONDENT] of Application :

Dispensation from consultation requirements under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 20ZA Tribunal Members :

Judge Professor R Percival

Venue : Remote paper determination Date of Decision : 27 September 2021

DECISION

2

Decisions of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal, pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”), grants dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the works the subject of the application. Procedural 1. The landlord submitted an application for retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) and the regulations thereunder, dated 19 January 2021.

2. The Tribunal gave directions on 16 March 2021. The directions provided for a form to be distributed to those who pay the service charge to allow them to object to or agree with the applications, and, if objecting, to provide such further material as they sought to rely on. The application and directions was required to be sent to the leaseholders and any sublessees, and to be displayed as a notice in the common parts of the property. The deadline for return of the forms, to the Applicant and the Tribunal, was 30 April 2021.

3. The Applicant confirmed that the relevant documentation had been sent, and posted as notices, as required by the directions.

4. No response from a leaseholders has been received by the Tribunal. The property and the works 5. The property is a masonry/brick building built in the early 20th century, and converted into four flats. Only one flat is let on a long lease, the other three being retained by the Applicant.

6. The works involved are required to repair a leaking skylight, which required the erection of scaffolding. The Applicant states that the leak was causing significant damage to the top floor communal area of the building. Photographs are provided in the bundle. An estimate of £2,150.40, inclusive of VAT, had been obtained.

7. The Applicant states that a report of a leak causing damage was received in September 2020. Having secured the estimate mentioned above, scaffolding was erected (on 5 October 2020) and the quotation mentioned above obtained. The works have been carried out.

3 8. The Applicant submits that the urgency was such that undertaking the consultation exercise required by section 20 of the 1985 Act was not possible or desirable.

9. No reply has been received by the Tribunal from the Respondent. Determination 10. The Tribunal is concerned solely with an application under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with the consultation requirements under section 20 of the same Act.

11. In the first place, I accept that there was a significant degree of urgency to prevent further damage to the communal area.

12. Secondly, as stated, no response has been received from the leaseholders. It is therefore clear that the leaseholders have not sought to claim any prejudice as a result of the consultation requirements not having been satisfied. Where that is the case, the Tribunal must, quite apart from any question of urgency, allow the application: [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] 1 WLR 854.

13. This application relates solely to the granting of dispensation. If the leaseholders considers the cost of the works to be excessive or the quality of the workmanship poor, or if costs sought to be recovered through the service charge are otherwise not reasonably incurred, then it is open to them to apply to the Tribunal for a determination of those issues under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Name: Judge Prof Richard Percival Date: 27 September 2021

4 Appendix of relevant legislation

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 20 (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate tribunal . (2) In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement. (3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount. (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount. (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in

5 accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.] Section 20ZA

(1) Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements. (2) In section 20 and this section— “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a [NAME], for a term of more than twelve months. (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b) in any circumstances so prescribed. (4) In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord— (a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants’ association representing them, (b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c) to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements. (6) Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b) may make different provision for different purposes. (7) Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

📊 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 tribunal accepted that there was a significant degree of urgency to prevent further damage to the communal area.
  • The leaseholders did not claim any prejudice from the lack of consultation.
  • The landlord confirmed that the required documentation was sent and posted as notices.
  • The works were needed to repair a leaking skylight that was causing significant damage to the top floor communal area.

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 consultation process for urgent repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency of the repairs and the potential for further damage.

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 skip the consultation process if their repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs showing the damage and an estimate for the repairs were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case 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.