Landlord Granted Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Consultation
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent further water damage to a flat.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary to prevent property damage.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it deems it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and outlines the consultation requirements that can be dispensed with.
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 for urgent roof repairs to prevent water damage to a flat. The landlord acted urgently due to water ingress affecting the top floor flat's bedrooms.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
Case Reference
: LON/00AY/LDC/2020/0011
Property : 49 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondents : [redacted]
Type of [NAME] : Under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ('the Act') for dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of qualifying works
Date of [NAME] : 6 January 2020
Date of Decision : 11 February 2020
Tribunal : Mrs [NAME]
________________________________________
DECISION ________________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2 DETERMINATION
The Tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements contained in section 20 of the Act and the associated Regulations in respect of the qualifying works, the subject of the [NAME].
Reasons for the Tribunal's determination
Introduction
1. On 6 January 2020 [APPELLANT] (‘the Applicant’) applied to the Tribunal ('the [NAME]') for an order under section 20ZA of the Act dispensing with the consultation requirements contained in section 20 of the Act and associated regulations in respect of 49 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘[NAME]’). The Respondents are the leaseholders of the three flats at [NAME].
2. Section 20ZA (1) of the Act provides as follows:
'(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 do so.'
3. The works the subject of the [NAME], which had been started at the date of the [NAME], involved the erection of scaffolding and new lead flashings and guttering works at the rear of [NAME]. The Applicant stated that the reason for the urgency was that both bedrooms off the top floor flat were affected by water ingress and the flat could become uninhabitable. Further details are contained in the paragraphs containing the Applicant's submissions (see below).
4. The Applicant requested a paper track (i.e. on the basis of the written submissions of the parties).
5. Directions were issued by the Tribunal dated 14 January 2020.
6. The Tribunal proceeded to determine the [NAME] without an inspection as photographs had been supplied by the Applicant along with an invoice detailing the works.
The relevant lease provisions
7. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the Lease for First Floor Flat, [ADDRESS], Brixton, London. The Lease is dated 22 January 1997 and is made between [APPELLANT] (Landlord) and the respective Tenant. In consideration of a premium and the payments of a ground rent and a service charge, the Lease grants [NAME] to the Tenant for a period of 125 years from 29 September 1996.
3 8. It is assumed that the remaining leases are similar in all material respects.
9. Paragraph 6 of the Lease states the Landlord’s Covenants:
6. (A) (1) He will keep in good and substantial repair and condition (and whenever necessary rebuilt and reinstate and renew and replace and improve all worn or damaged parts): -
(i) The main structure of the Building (including but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing the foundations the principal internal timbers joists and beams and the exterior walls and all structural walls columns and piers (whether external or internal) and the roof thereof) save so such matters as may be included in this demise or in the demise of any Residential Unit.
10. The Tenant covenants in Paragraph 4 (E) of the Lease to pay the service charge in the manner provided in Clause 7 of the lease.
The Applicant's submissions
11. The Applicant is responsible for the maintenance of the main structure which includes the roof.
12. On 28 November 2019, the Applicant became aware that the top floor flat of the Building was experiencing rain ingress in both bedrooms at the rear of [NAME].
13. A roofing contractor inspected the damage on 9 December 2019 and stated that, in order to undertake repairs safely, scaffolding would need to be erected.
14. By letter dated 10 December 2019 all three leaseholders were invited to make written observations on the proposal to carry out roof repairs; the consultation period to end on 14 January 2020.
15. A verbal quotation was then received from the roofing contract [NAME] and the leaseholders were informed on 17 December 2019 that a decision would be made as to whether an [NAME] for dispensation for any consultation requirements would need to be made to the First tier Tribunal, once the written quote had been received.
16. Access was required from the leaseholder of the ground floor flat to erect the scaffolding and, once this was obtained, the works went ahead. These were completed on 7 January 2020.
17. The Tribunal notes that the [NAME] was made aware of the damp ingress. The Applicant decided to carry out the works as a matter of urgency and before the flat became uninhabitable.
18. The Tribunal notes that there have been no representations from any of the Respondents as set out in the Directions.
4 The Tribunal's Determination
19. The Tribunal was provided with evidence that the work was urgent to prevent continued water ingress into the top floor flat.
20. It is not the concern of the Tribunal, in any case, as to whether the cost was reasonably incurred. The Respondents retain the right to challenge the cost by [NAME] an [NAME] under section 27A of the Act at a later date. The question before the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable, in the circumstances of the case to dispense with the consultation requirements. The Tribunal therefore determines that it is just and equitable that dispensation is granted from the consultation requirements contained in section 20 of the Act and the associated regulations requested by the [NAME].
A J Rawlence MRICS – Chairman.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. 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.
2. 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].
3. 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, [NAME] and the case number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.
5 Annexe A
[NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mr [NAME] and Mrs [NAME] Mrs [NAME]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Light Works Consultation Dispensed With
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Lift Replacement Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Safety Works Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Repayment Order Against Landlord for Unlawful Eviction
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted Rent Repayment Order for Unlicensed HMO
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 urgent and necessary to prevent property damage.
- The works are deemed urgent and reasonable.
- The works are necessary and expedient.
- The works are urgent and cost-effective.
- Urgent safety works are required to maintain essential services.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The property was not let to the tenant at the time the Prohibition Order came into effect.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.
Who was involved?
The landlord and leaseholders of a building were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent water 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 urgency and necessity of the repairs to prevent water damage were the most important arguments.
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 bypass consultation requirements if their repairs are urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs and invoices detailing the repairs were submitted as evidence.
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 involving property repairs and consultation requirements.
