Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Consultation

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : CAM/00KF/LDC/2025/0611

Property : Flats A-E, [ADDRESS], Westcliff on Sea, Essex, [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted]

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

Tribunal members : Judge Wayte

Date of decision : 14 April 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 repairing a hole in the flashing, fixing the tear/displacement in the roofing felt and clearing obstructed guttering.

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

Reasons for the tribunal’s decision

The [NAME]

1. The Applicant applied for dispensation with the statutory consultation requirements in relation to repairing a hole in the flashing, fixing the tear/displacement in the roofing felt and clearing obstructed guttering. This is causing damage as a result of water ingress and mould in flat 24C. 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 [NAME], the only issue for the tribunal is whether it is satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements. This [NAME] 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 [NAME] form, the Applicant said the relevant works were urgent, the roof is continuing to deteriorate with increased rainfall at this time of year and this is causing more damage to the property. The [NAME] of 24C is unable to sublet their property due to damp and water ingress as a result. A notice of intention was given to all [NAME] on 31 January 2025

5. On 24 February 2025, the tribunal gave case management directions for these dispensation proceedings. The directions required the Applicant to (amongst other things) write to each of the [NAME] with copies of the [NAME] form and details, any other evidence relied upon and the directions. The Applicant confirms they did so on 7 March 2025 by first class post (and by e-mail to those for whom they had an e-mail address). The directions did state for this to be completed by 3 March 2025, however the applicant contacted the tribunal on 7 March 2025 to confirm that had only just received the directions by post on that day and they were subsequently told to comply with paragraph 2 of the directions as soon as possible, which the applicant did.

6. The applicant confirmed in their bundle that no responses were received from the [NAME]. The tribunal also did not receive any responses from the [NAME].

7. In the circumstances, I treat the [NAME] 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.

8. The Applicant produced documents for the determination. These included photographs of the damp and mould in the affected property, three quotes for the required works from [COMPANY] for £1740.00, [COMPANY] for £1745.00 and [NAME] for £3968.00. A sample lease was also provided.

9. The works have now been undertaken and the applicant has provided an invoice from [COMPANY] confirming the total cost of the works was £1740,00.

The tribunal’s decision

10. This [NAME] 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.

11. 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.

12. The tribunal determines under section 20ZA of the 1985 Act to dispense with all the consultation requirements in relation to repairing a hole in the flashing, fixing the tear/displacement in the roofing felt and clearing obstructed guttering.

13. There was no [NAME] to the tribunal for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. This is to prevent the applicant passing the costs of the [NAME] to the [NAME] through the service charge, if so permitted under the lease.

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

Judge Wayte

14 April 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 [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).