Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : CAM/22UH/LDC/2025/0659

Property : [APPELLANT], 5 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted]

Type of application :

Dispensation with consultation requirements - Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal members : Judge Bernadette MacQueen

Date of decision : 28 November 2025

DECISION

Description of hearing

This has been a remote determination on the papers which the parties are taken to have consented to, as explained below. A hearing was not held because it was not necessary, and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents that I was referred to are in an indexed bundle from the Applicant. I have noted the contents, and my decision is below.

The Tribunal’s decision

The Tribunal determines under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of water ingress that is affecting at least two of the top floor apartments that is coming from the roof.

The Applicant must send a copy of this decision to each of the Respondents.

Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision

The application

1. The Applicant applied for dispensation with the statutory consultation requirements in relation to water ingress that is affecting at least two of the top floor apartments that is coming from the roof. Any contributions from the Respondents through the service charge towards the cost of these works would be limited to £250 unless the statutory consultation requirements, prescribed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the “1985 Act”) and the Service Charges (Consultation etc) (England) Regulations 2003, were complied with or are dispensed with by the Tribunal.

2. The Applicant seeks a determination from the Tribunal, under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act, to dispense with the consultation requirements. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant such dispensation if satisfied that it is reasonable to do so.

3. In this application, the only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements. This application does not concern any issue of whether any service charges for the costs of the works will be reasonable or payable.

Background

4. In their application form, the Applicant said the relevant works were urgent. This is due to at least two apartments suffering from water ingress because of several suspected roofing issues, to which the cost for scaffolding and potential works exceed the Section 20 threshold for the building. The Applicant has not yet appointed any contractors to do the works, but they have sought at least three quotes for the scaffolding. Two of these quotes have provided a provisional sum for the works, however it is not known what is causing the water ingress; therefore, these costs are provisional. The Applicant has issued Notice of Intention to [NAME].

5. On 26 August 2025, the Tribunal gave case management directions for these dispensation proceedings. On 14 October 2025 the Applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting an extension to missed deadlines due to staff illness. The Tribunal then issued amended directions on 15 October 2025. The directions required the Applicant to (amongst other things) write to each of the Respondent [NAME] with copies of the application form and details, any other evidence relied upon and the directions. The Applicant confirms they did so on 17 October 2025 by email to every [NAME] and a copy of the application and the Tribunal directions were placed on the communal notice board in the development. This was confirmed by email from the Applicant to the Tribunal on 21 October 2025.

6. The Tribunal did not receive any reply forms from [NAME] objecting to the application and the Applicant has not included any objections in their bundles. In the circumstances, I treat the application as unopposed and, under rule 31(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the parties are taken to have consented to this matter being determined without a hearing. This determination is based on the documents in the bundle prepared by the Applicant in accordance with the case management directions. On reviewing these documents, I considered that a hearing was not necessary.

7. The Applicant produced documents for the determination. This included, a copy of the application form, both sets of directions. and two sample leases. The Applicant did not provide any copies of any quotes or requests for quotes.

The Tribunal’s decision

8. This application was not opposed by the Respondents, who have not challenged the information provided by the Applicant, identified any prejudice they might suffer because of the non-compliance with the consultation requirements, given any other reasons why dispensation should not be granted or in these proceedings asked for or provided any other information. In the circumstances, based on the information provided by the Applicant (as summarised above), I am satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements in relation to the relevant works.

9. As noted above, this decision does not determine whether the cost of these works is reasonable or payable as service charges under the leases, only whether the consultation requirements should be dispensed with in respect of them.

10. The Tribunal determines under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with all the consultation requirements in relation to of water ingress that is affecting at least two of the top floor apartments that is coming from the roof.

11. There was no application to the Tribunal for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act.

12. The Applicant shall send a copy of this decision to the Respondents.

Judge Bernadette MacQueen Date: 28 November 2025

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).