VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent repairs needed at a residential property due to water leaking through the roof. This decision was made under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under certain circumstances involving urgent repairs.

Topics

service chargesurgent repairsdispensation

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

This section allows a landlord to apply to a tribunal for permission to bypass consultation requirements related to certain works or long-term agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so.

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 under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent repairs needed at a residential property due to water ingress through the roof. Judge Tagliavini presided over the case.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2023/0024 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : P: PAPERREMOTE Property : 27 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] (2) Ms [NAME] (3) Ms [NAME] (4) [NAME] [NAME] S [NAME] (5) [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] and Miss [NAME] D [NAME] (6) Regis Group (Nationwide) [COMPANY] : N/A Type of [NAME] : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 12 April 2023

DECISION

2

Summary decisions of the tribunal (1.) The tribunal grants the applicant dispensation from the

consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant

Act 1985 (‘the 1095 Act’) in respect of the investigative scaffolding and

remedial work required to remedy the ingress of water through the roof

into the property situate at 27 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the

Property’) as set out in the various invoices of [NAME]

variously dated January 2023 to March 2023. _________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. The applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements of

section 20 of the 1985 Act, in respect of the erection of scaffolding to

investigate and carry out all necessary repairs required to remedy the

ingress of water into the Property through the roof into Flat 6. 2. The Property comprises a converted, detached house converted into

residential units. A Notice of Intention dated 5 January 2023 was sent

to all [NAME] notifying them of the proposed work. The applicant’s case 3. In support of the [NAME] the tribunal was provided with copies of the invoices provided by [NAME] and accompanying photographs dated variously between January 2023 to March 2023, detailing their investigation and defects found and proposed remedial works. The respondent’s case 4. No response to the [NAME] for dispensations was received from any

of the [NAME]. The tribunal’s decision and reasons 5. In the absence of any objection by, or identification of any prejudice

caused to the [NAME], the tribunal finds it reasonable and

appropriate to grant the dispensation sought by the applicant pursuant

to section 20ZA of the 1985 Act. The tribunal considers the nature of

the works required reasonably require urgent investigation and repair

and therefore dispensation of the consultation requirements; [COMPANY] [COMPANY] v [NAME] and others [2013] UKSC 14.

3 Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 12 April 2023

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 [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. 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]. 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. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] 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 landlord can obtain dispensation for urgent and necessary repairs.
  • Adjusting rent based on property condition and market conditions is allowed.
  • Landlords can avoid consultation requirements if repairs are urgent and vital.
  • Rent increases require valid notices under the Housing Act 1988.
  • Reasonable costs for granting a new lease are payable by tenants.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • Tenant applications for review are struck out if notices don't follow the prescribed form.
  • Applications to review excessive rent more than six months post-commencement are dismissed.
  • Applications determining pitch fees submitted outside the specified time limits are struck out.

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 repairs needed at a residential property.

Who was involved?

The landlord and several leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the repairs were urgent and there was no objection from the leaseholders.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgency of the repairs and the lack of objections from 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 may also seek dispensation from consultation requirements if their repairs are urgent and there are no objections from leaseholders.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Invoices and photographs detailing the investigation and proposed repairs were important.

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 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.