Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a company to bypass the usual consultation process for urgent roof repairs. The repairs were deemed necessary to prevent further damage to a flat. Leaseholders were informed but did not object.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tribunal may grant dispensation from consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so and there is no prejudice to leaseholders.
📖 What the law says
The tribunal can decide to waive consultation requirements if it finds it reasonable to do so and there is no harm to leaseholders. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State regarding providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenant suggestions, considering tenant observations, and giving reasons for certain actions.
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 dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs to prevent further damage to a flat. The tribunal found that leaseholders were aware of the works and none had objected.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2024/0048 Property : 8 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] :
[RESPONDENT]
Respondent: [redacted]
The Lessees at 8 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]. As per the schedule attached to the application
Representative : Not represented Type of application : Application for dispensation from the consultation requirements of s20 under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : [NAME] Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 18 June 2024
DECISION
2
Decision of the tribunal 1. The tribunal exercises its discretion to grant dispensation from the consultation requirements of s20ZA in respect of the works required to replace repair the roof. The application 2. The Applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) in respect of works required to repair the roof to make it watertight and stop further leaks. The works are urgent as damage is being caused to flat 2.
3. Directions were made on 10 April 2024 for a paper determination in the week commencing 17 June 2024. The only issue for the tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements.
4. This decision does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.
The hearing 5. A written application was made by the managing agents of the property on behalf of the RTM Company under the leases of the flats in the block on 28 November 2023.
6. A specimen lease of the raised ground floor flat has been provided and the other leases are said to be in similar form . The case was decided on paper and no appearances were made. The tribunal considered the written application form, copy letters to the leaseholders, and the estimates and the specimen lease included in the bundle.
The background 7. The property is a four-storey converted townhouse with a single storey and two-storey flat roofed extension to the rear converted into 4 flats. Each flat is sold on long lease and each lease requires the landlord to provide services and the tenant to contribute towards their costs by way of a variable service charge.
8. An inspection was not requested and the tribunal did not consider that one was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues.
3 9. A specimen lease has been provided showing the scope of the works is within the service charge provisions of the lease. A list of leaseholders has been provided. The tribunal directed the applicant to provide copies of the application and directions to each lessee and to display the directions in the common entrance. Confirmation was sent to the tribunal that the application had been provided to all leaseholders. No representations have been received objecting to the application as to the scope of the works or appropriateness of the application. Reasonableness and payability of the service charge is not within the scope of this application. The Law s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Service charges 20ZA Consultation requirements: supplementary (1)Where an application 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 dispense with the requirements. (2)In section 20 and this section— “qualifying works” means works on a building or any other premises, and “qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months. (3)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a)if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b)in any circumstances so prescribed. (4)In section 20 and this section “the consultation requirements” means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5)Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord—
4 (a)to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants’ association representing them, (b)to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c)to invite tenants or the recognised tenants’ association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d)to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e)to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements. (5A)And in the case of works to which section 20D applies, regulations under subsection (4) may also include provision requiring the landlord— (a)to give details of the steps taken or to be taken under section 20D(2), (b)to give reasons about prescribed matters, and any other prescribed information, relating to the taking of such steps, and (c)to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants’ association in relation to the taking of such steps. (6)Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a)may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b)may make different provision for different purposes. (7)Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
10. The applicable case law is [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, 1 WLR 854 where the Supreme Court held that the relevant test is whether the leaseholders have suffered prejudice by the failure to consult. Where the extent, quality and cost of the works were unaffected by the landlord’s failure to comply with the consultation requirements, an unconditional dispensation should normally be granted.
5 The tribunal’s decision 11. The tribunal exercises its discretion to grant dispensation from the consultation requirements of under s20 ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003
Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 12. The works were to remedy a leaking roof causing damage within the 2nd floor flat. The lowest quotation received was £4380 inclusive of VAT which is above the consultation threshold. Due to the urgency of the work application has been made to dispense with the section 20 consultation requirements. The works were carried out urgently to mitigate further damage.
13. The tribunal is satisfied that the leaseholders were aware of the works required and none have objected.
14. The Tribunal is being asked to exercise its discretion under s.20ZA of the Act. The wording of s.20ZA is significant. Subs. (1) provides:
“Where an application is made to a [leasehold valuation] 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 dispense with the requirements” (emphasis added).
15. The Tribunal understands that the purposes of the consultation requirements is to ensure that leaseholders are given the fullest possible opportunity to make observations about expenditure of money for which they will in part be liable. The test laid down by the Supreme Court in [NAME] v Benson is whether the leaseholders would suffer prejudice if the application were to be granted and a full consultation not carried out.
16. The tribunal considers that there is no prejudice to the leaseholders in granting dispensation as the works were urgently needed to prevent further water ingress. The tribunal is satisfied that the risk of delay outweighs any possible prejudice arising from a failure to carry out the full consultation process.
17. The tribunal is satisfied the works were urgent and that dispensation should be granted.
18. The granting of dispensation is not concerned with the cost and recoverability of service charges for the works which are dealt with under section 27A of the Act.
6 Name: [NAME]: 18 June 2024
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 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs in Multi-Tenant Buildi…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Safety Measures
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
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.
- There is no prejudice to leaseholders.
- The works are necessary for safety.
- Leaseholders are not prejudiced.
- Leaseholders are aware and have not objected.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A landlord cannot be granted dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 unless it is reasonable to do so.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.
Who was involved?
The applicant company sought dispensation from consultation requirements, while the leaseholders were informed but did not object.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and leaseholders were aware of the works.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the repairs were urgent and leaseholders were aware of the works.
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 may also seek dispensation from consultation requirements if the repairs are urgent and leaseholders are informed.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Letters to leaseholders, estimates, and a specimen lease were important documents.
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 recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
