Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Works and Repairs
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent roof works and repairs to the entrance porchway at a Grade II listed property. The works were considered necessary and urgent due to health and safety risks.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are necessary and urgent, and there is no prejudice to the leaseholders.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can grant dispensation from consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it determines that it is reasonable to do so. The 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 actions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent roof works and repairs to the entrance porchway.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for proposed roof works and repairs to the entrance porchway at a Grade II listed property. The works were deemed necessary and urgent due to health and safety risks.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BJ/LDC/2021/0254 P: PAPERREMOTE Property : 12-16 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : LRPM Respondents : [redacted] schedule to the [NAME] : Unrepresented Type of [NAME] : Section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Dispensation with consultation requirements Tribunal member(s) :
[NAME] (Valuer Chair) Date of Paper Determination : 22nd November 2021 Date of Decision : 22nd November 2021
DECISION
This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P: PAPERREMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents that I was referred to are in a bundle of 47 pages, the contents of which I have noted.
2 Decision of the Tribunal
(a) The Tribunal grants dispensation under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’) for proposed roof works and defective brick work to the entrance porchway at 12-16 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the Property’). (b) No terms are imposed on the grant of dispensation. (c) The applicant shall send a copy of this decision to each of the respondents, either by email, hand delivery or first-class post and shall send an email to the Tribunal by 1st December 2021, confirming the date(s) when this was done. The [NAME]
1. The applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the 1985 Act.
2. The [NAME] was submitted on 28th September 2021 and directions were issued on 12th October 2021. These provided that the case be allocated to the paper track, to be determined upon the basis of written representations. None of the parties has objected to this allocation or requested an oral hearing. The paper determination took place on 22 November 2021.
3. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the appendix to this decision. The background 4. The Property, viewed via [ADDRESS], comprises an attractive early Victorian era former Lodge House, as part of a mews development. It appears to be arranged over four floors and converted into 5 self- contained flats. It is of traditional construction and we are further informed that it is Grade II listed. The respondents are the lessees of these units.
5. The applicant seeks dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for proposed works to the flat roof and defective brick work of the portico entrance. The applicant does not rely on any expert reports but informs us that water ingress and deterioration of the brick work represents a risk to the occupants and visitors.
3 6. The estimated cost of the Works obtained from two tenders is approximately £1500, with tenders received from [NAME] decorating (£1444.77) and [APPELLANT] (£1494.00)
7. The applicant sent a stage 1 notice of intention letter to all respondents with the consultation period ending 8th September 2021. The only leaseholder response received was questioning when the works were going to be done.
8. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable. The grounds of the [NAME]
9. The grounds are set out in the [NAME] dated 28th September 2021 and can be summarised as follows: (a) The works are necessary and urgent due to it being a health and safety risk from falling brick work.
10. Paragraph 3 of the directions dated 12th October 2021 gave the respondents an opportunity to object to the dispensation [NAME] by completing and returning reply forms and serving statements, setting out their grounds of opposition. None were received. The Tribunal’s decision 11. The Tribunal grants prospective dispensation for the Works. No terms are imposed on the grant of dispensation. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 12. The Tribunal accepts that the Works are necessary and urgent.
13. Some consultation has been initiated that provided an opportunity for leaseholders to nominate any contractors and raise any objection. No leaseholders have opposed the dispensation [NAME]. The tribunal has not identified any prejudice that might arise from the grant of dispensation or proposed any terms as a condition of granting dispensation.
14. Having regard to the particular facts of this case and the guidance in [COMPANY] v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, it is reasonable to dispense with the strict consultation requirements.
4 15. This decision does not address the cost of the Works, or whether the respondents are liable to contribute to the cost via their service charges. Nothing in this decision prevents the respondents from seeking a determination of ‘payability’, pursuant to section 27A of the 1985 Act. Name: [NAME]: 22 November 2021
Rights of appeal
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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].
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
5
Appendix of relevant legislation Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 20 (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are [COMPANY] in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate tribunal .
6 (2) In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement. (3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount. (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is [COMPANY] to the appropriate amount. (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is [COMPANY] to the amount so prescribed or determined.] Section 20ZA (1) Where an [NAME] is made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination to dispense with all of 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 –
7
“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 [NAME], for a term of more than twelve months.
Section 27A (1) An [NAME] may be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to - (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) An [NAME] may also be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs and, if it would, as to - (a) the person by whom it would be payable, (b) the person to whom it would be payable, (c) the amount which would be payable, (d) the date at or by which it would be payable, and (e) the manner in which it would be payable. (4) No [NAME] under subsection (1) or (3) may be made in respect of a matter which - (a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Full Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Pipework Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Boiler Replacement Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Lift Modernisation Dispensation
- 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 Lift Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Full Consult…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fire Door Replacement Works Allowed Without Full Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
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 deemed necessary and urgent.
- There is no prejudice to the leaseholders.
- Full consultation would cause significant delays.
- The works are required for health and safety.
- The works are urgent and cannot wait for a full consultation process.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified as leading to a decision against the claimant based on the provided cases.)
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 works and repairs to the entrance porchway.
Who was involved?
The landlord sought dispensation from consultation requirements, while the leaseholders were unrepresented.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were necessary and urgent, and there was no evidence of prejudice to the leaseholders.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20 and 20ZA were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the works were necessary and urgent due to health and safety risks was crucial.
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 if the works are necessary and urgent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the necessity and urgency of the works, including tenders and a stage 1 notice of intention letter, was considered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving dispensation from consultation requirements.
