Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Roof Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to skip consulting leaseholders for urgent roof repairs because the repairs were deemed necessary and there were no objections from the tenants.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be granted dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary.
📖 What the law says
The appropriate tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements related to qualifying works if it is reasonable to do so.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent roof repairs at a block of flats. The decision was based on the significant roof defects and water ingress, and the lack of objections from the leaseholders.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :
LON/ooBE/LDC/2024/0127
Applicant: [redacted]
[COMPANY] : HML Respondents : [redacted] as per the schedule below
Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tribunal Member : Mr [NAME] Chairman Date of Decision : 9 September 2024
DECISION
2
Decision
1. The [NAME] for dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of roof repair works is GRANTED unconditionally.
Reasons
The Applicant’s Case
2. [NAME] to the Tribunal dated 2 April 2024, was made for a dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) (set out in the appendix). The [NAME] related to repairs to a flat roof.
3. The applicant’s case was that during the course of urgent roof repair works the roof deteriorated causing significant damage to lessees’ flats and requiring urgent further repairs. A contractor’s report had been obtained from [COMPANY]. Consultation under section 20 had been commenced. The works included scaffolding. The works have been carried out and a contractors’ invoice for £8,793.60 was supplied.
Directions
4. Directions were issued on 17 June 2024 that the matter be dealt with by written representations, unless any party made a request for an oral hearing, which none did. The directions required publicity to be given to the [NAME] in the block. This was confirmed to the Tribunal. In addition, lessees were invited to respond to the [NAME]. The applicant supplied a bundle of 96 pages.
The Property
5. From the [NAME] form, [ADDRESS] is a block of 8 flats built in 1970 with a flat roof.
The Leases
6. The Tribunal was supplied with a sample lease. However, the Tribunal makes no finding as to payability or reasonableness of the costs to be incurred as that is outside the scope of this [NAME].
The Respondents’ Case
7. There were no objections from any lessee.
The Law
8. Section 20ZA is set out in the appendix to this decision. The Tribunal has discretion to grant dispensation when it considers it reasonable to do so. In
3
addition, the Supreme Court Judgment in [COMPANY] v [NAME] and Others [2013] UKSC 14 empowers the Tribunal to grant dispensation on terms or subject to conditions. In Daejan at para 46 Lord [NAME] stated “The Requirements are a means to an end, not an end in themselves, and the end to which they are directed is the protection of tenants in relation to service charges, to the extent identified above. …the Requirements leave untouched the fact that it is the landlord who decides what work needs to be done, when they are to be done, who they are to be done by, and what amount is to be paid for them.”
Findings
9. There was clear evidence from the contractor’s report of significant roof defects and water ingress. The Tribunal considers that the applicant has acted reasonably in addressing a serious and urgent matter. There were no objectors. Therefore, the Tribunal grants dispensation unconditionally.
10. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs have been or will be reasonably incurred or are or be payable. The leaseholders continue to enjoy the protection of sections 19 and 27A of the Act. In summary, these provide that service charges are only payable for costs reasonably incurred (or to be incurred) and for work of a reasonable standard.
Mr [NAME]
9 September 2024 Valuer Chairman
ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL
• The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its decisions by virtue of the rule 36 (2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below.
• If a party wishes to appeal against 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.
4
• 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.
Appendix
Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (1)Where an [NAME] is made to [the appropriate 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 superior landlord, 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.
5
(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.
Schedule of Residential Leaseholders
Unit Name Name Flat 1 [NAME] 2 [NAME] 3 Ataer Cetinkaya & Nilay Gok Cetinkaya Flat 4 Mr [NAME] 5 [NAME] 6 [NAME] 7 The Late Mr & Mrs [NAME] c/o Mr [NAME] 8 Mr [NAME] & Ms [NAME]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission to Bypass Consultation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Unconditional Dispensation Granted for Urgent Water Ingress Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Unconditional Dispensation Granted for Urgent Building Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Water Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Pigeon Infestation Wo…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Unconditional Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
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 deemed urgent and reasonable.
- The works are deemed urgent and necessary.
- The works are urgent and necessary.
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 requirements for urgent roof repairs.
Who was involved?
The landlord of a block of flats and the leaseholders of those flats.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the roof repairs were urgent and necessary, and there were no objections from the leaseholders.
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 that the repairs were urgent and necessary, and there were no objections from the leaseholders.
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 might also be able to get dispensation from consultation requirements if their repairs are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of significant roof defects and water ingress, and the lack of objections from the leaseholders 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 a case like this.
