VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Grants £28,800 in Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation for 67-Flat Block

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a management company to bypass formal consultation for urgent roof repairs, citing the need to address water leakage quickly.

⚖️ Legal holding

It is reasonable to dispense with statutory consultation requirements in urgent cases involving significant property damage.

Topics

statutory consultation requirementsurgent repairs

Provisions

section 20ZA(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The First-tier Tribunal can grant permission to skip certain consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so, especially in urgent situations like significant property damage or urgent repairs.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from statutory consultation requirements due to urgent roof repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from statutory consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs, citing the need to address water ingress without delay.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AJ/LDC/2024/0077 Applicant : [redacted] [APPELLANT] : [NAME] (Ref: 30030144) Respondent : [redacted] Property : [NAME], 1089 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tribunal : Judge Adrian Jack, Tribunal Member [NAME] of decision : 8th July 2024

DECISION

Background to the application A. The applicant has applied for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in respect of leaks in the roof structure the scaffold works were needed to assist the [NAME] with identifying the main causes and issues. The estimated cost of the works was initially £21,600 including VAT. However, when the contractor was [NAME] the scaffolding on site, it was discovered that more flats had complained of water ingress so more scaffolding was installed making the final costs total £28,800 including VAT. B. According to the application, there had been limited consultation due to the urgency of the works. The application is said to be urgent because of the leaks throughout the roof structure, the [NAME] needed the scaffolding in place in order to make checks on the roof and exterior of the [NAME] and identify where the problems are. C. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

2 D. Directions were given on 16th May 2024. No tenant has indicated a wish to participate in the proceedings and none has indicated any opposition to the application. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal must determine itself whether it is appropriate to dispense with the consultation requirements. Reasons 1. This is a matter which has urgency. The block contains 67 flats. The applicant is a [COMPANY]. The applicant explains: “The scaffold works were urgently required due to the leaks throughout the roof structure, the [NAME] needed the scaffolding in place in order to make checks to the roof and exterior of the [NAME] and identify where the problems are.” 2. Section 20ZA(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides: “Where an application is made to the appropriate tribunal [in this case, this Tribunal] for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works…, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.” 3. In our judgment it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements. Consultation would take several months, whereas the water ingress needed to be dealt with without delay.

DECISION 1. The Tribunal grants dispensation pursuant to section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the works, the subject of the application. 2. No order for costs. Name: [NAME]: 8th July 2024

📊 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 works are urgent and necessary to ensure the safety of the building.
  • The works are urgent and necessary to prevent further damage.
  • Urgent works are necessary to prevent water ingress.
  • Works are urgent and necessary to prevent health and safety issues.
  • Works are urgent and necessary to prevent significant damage or injury.
  • Works are urgent and no prejudice is caused to leaseholders.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal granted dispensation to bypass consultation requirements for urgent water damage repairs costing over £28,800 including VAT.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether the landlord could bypass the statutory consultation requirements for urgent water damage repairs costing over £28,800 including VAT.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the urgency of the water damage required immediate action, and consultation would have delayed the necessary repairs.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA(1) was applied to determine whether it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency of the water damage and the need to act immediately to prevent further damage.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing them to bypass the consultation requirements.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can seek dispensation from consultation requirements if they face urgent water damage repairs costing over £28,800 including VAT.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered, but it likely included details about the urgency and cost of the repairs.

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.