VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Roof Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to skip the consultation process required by law to perform urgent roof repairs. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent further damage to a person.

⚖️ 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 urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.

Topics

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985roof repairsconsultation requirements

Provisions

section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

Under this section, a landlord can apply to a tribunal for permission to bypass consultation requirements related to 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 from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a landlord dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to carry out urgent roof repairs. The tribunal determined that the works were necessary to prevent further damage to the building.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2021/0005 Property : 64 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“[NAME]”) Applicant : [redacted] (“the Landlord”) Representative : [RESPONDENT] Respondents : [redacted] tenants”) Representative : N/A Type of Application :

For dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Member :

Judge Jim Shepherd

Date of Decision : 10th March 2021

DECISION

The Applicant is given dispensation from the consultation requirements contained in s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in order to carry out roof repairs as specified in their application.

The application 1. The applicant seeks an order pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) (“the 1985 Act”) for dispensation from all or part of the consultation requirements imposed on them by section 20 of the 1985 Act1.

2. The applicant is the freeholder of premises at 64 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“[NAME]”). [NAME] is a four - storey property.

3. The applicant seeks dispensation for urgent works to the roof. On carrying out investigations it was found that there was a leaking roof which was causing damage to the communal areas. After a number of visits by a contractor the problem was identified as worse than originally thought. It was felt necessary to carry out urgent works which are ongoing. There have been no objections to the dispensation application from the tenants.

4. The tribunal did not consider that an inspection of [NAME] was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute.

5. The only issue for the tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements of section 20 of the 1985 Act. This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. The Tribunal’s decision 6. The Tribunal determines that an order from dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act shall be made dispensing with all of the consultation requirements in relation to the said roof works. Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision 7. The tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant dispensation under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act “if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements”.

1 See Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (SI2003/1987) Schedule 4, Part 2.

8. In making its decision the tribunal had regard to the fact that the applicant has apparently carry out works as soon as possible to avoid further damage to [NAME]. This seems eminently sensible.

9. It is not considered that the tenants have suffered any particular prejudice as a result of the failure to follow the correct consultation procedure (see [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14.) The Tribunal accepts that the landlord’s intentions to carry out the works as soon as possible are genuine in order to preserve the integrity of [NAME].

10. Again the parties should note that this decision does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. The tenants have the right to challenge such costs by way of a separate application if they so wish.

Name: [NAME]: 10th March 2021

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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application 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 making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application 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

  • Works are considered urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.
  • There is no objection from the tenant regarding the urgency and necessity of the works.
  • The landlord seeks dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  • It is reasonable to waive the statutory consultation requirements due to the urgency of the works.
  • The works are deemed essential for preventing immediate harm or damage.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenancy is classified as a secure tenancy rather than an assured periodic tenancy.
  • The challenge is based on incorrect figures in a notice of rent increase, unrelated to consultation requirements.
  • A licence cannot be transferred to another person under the Housing Act 2004, unrelated to consultation requirements.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal granted the landlord dispensation from the consultation requirements to carry out urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord requested dispensation from the consultation requirements, while the tenants were informed but did not object.

How did the court decide, and why?

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

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20 and Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the works were urgent and necessary to prevent further damage to the building.

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 may also be able to obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the identification of a leaking roof causing damage to communal areas and the need for urgent repairs.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.

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 property law.

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.