VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed the landlord to skip formal consultation for urgent roof repairs because the work was deemed necessary and no harm was done to the tenants.

⚖️ Legal holding

An applicant is entitled to dispensation from consultation under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the works are urgent and no substantial prejudice is caused to the respondents.

Topics

dispensation from consultationurgent worksstatutory consultation

Provisions

Landlord 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 deems it reasonable to do so. It defines 'qualifying works' as works on a building or premises and 'qualifying long term agreement' as an agreement lasting over twelve months. The consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State, which can include providing details of proposed works, obtaining estimates, considering tenant proposals, and giving reasons for actions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation for urgent roof repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation to the applicant for urgent roof repairs carried out in September 2025, finding that the works were urgent and no substantial prejudice was caused to the leaseholders.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :

LON/00AP/LDC/2025/0932

Property : 44 The Broadway, Crouch End, London, [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] (managing agents) Respondents : [redacted] Representative : N/A Type of application : Dispensation for consultation – s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 10 March 2026

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants the applicant the dispensation from statutory

consultation sought, in respect of the roof and associated works carried

out in September 2025 by [COMPANY] in the sum of

£3,109.81 (inc. VAT). _____________________________________________________ The application 1. The applicant seeks retrospective dispensation from consultation

pursuant to s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of

urgent works to the roof above the top floor flat and to the guttering. The

applicant’s contractor advised that the box guttering had failed and that

there are several cracked slates. The background 2. The subject property is a block of 3 flats with a shop on the ground floor

and basement. 3. The applicant informed the tribunal that no statutory consultation had

been carried out, but the managing agents kept the [NAME]

informed of the proposed works. The cost of works carried out in

September 2025 by [COMPANY] was £3,109.81 (Inc. VAT). 4. The applicant stated that its contractor advised that the box guttering

has failed and that there are several cracked slates that had led to the

ingress of water into the subject building and in danger of affecting the

electrical installations in the flats. 5. No statutory consultation was carried out by the applicant but its

managing agents had kept the [NAME] informed of the necessary

works. The hearing 6. Neither party requested an oral hearing and therefore the tribunal

determined the application using the 77 page digital bundle provided by

the applicant. This included copies of quotations for the necessary works

and the final invoice. 7. The applicant confirmed it had not received any objections to the works

from the respondents. The decision

3 8. The tribunal is satisfied that works to remedy the ingress of water into

the subject property were urgent and causing damage to the property

and presented a danger to the electrical installations. 9. The tribunal is also satisfied the respondents have not objected to the

application and therefore have failed to show they have been caused any

substantial prejudice by the absence of any statutory consultation prior

to the works being carried out; [COMPANY] v [NAME] [2011] EWCA Civ 38. 10. Therefore, the tribunal grants the dispensation from consultation sought

by the applicant in respect of works to the roof and gutters carried out in

September 2025 by [COMPANY] in the sum of £3,109.81

(inc. VAT).

Name:

Judge Tagliavini Date: 10 March 2026

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 should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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

4 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

  • The works were urgent because water was entering the property and damaging it.
  • The water ingress posed a danger to the electrical installations in the flats.
  • The respondents did not object to the application for dispensation.
  • The respondents failed to show they suffered any significant harm from the lack of prior consultation.
  • The managing agents kept the residents informed about the necessary works.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant dispensation from consultation for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the landlord could skip formal consultation because the repairs were urgent and necessary.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the repairs were urgent and necessary, and no substantial prejudice was caused to the leaseholders.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might be able to skip formal consultation if their repairs are urgent and necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgency and necessity of the repairs, along with the lack of objections from the leaseholders, mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions 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 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.