Tribunal Grants Urgent Repair Works Dispensation Without Conditions
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to skip the usual consultation process for repairing a flat roof at a property in London. The decision was made because the repairs were urgently needed to prevent further water damage to the upper floors.
⚖️ Legal holding
It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements where urgent repairs are necessary.
📖 What the law says
The appropriate tribunal can grant a request to waive consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it 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 due to urgent repairs needed.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements for urgent repair works to the flat roof coverings at a property in London. The decision was based on the urgent need to make the building watertight following significant water damage to the upper floor flats.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AW/LDC/2022/0223 HMCTS code : P: PAPER REMOTE Property : 93 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] ([COUNSEL]) Respondents :
[redacted]
Type of application : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :
Judge Robert Latham
Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 15 May 2023
DECISION
The Tribunal grants this application to dispense retrospectively with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 without condition in respect of works to the flat roof coverings.
2 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPER REMOTE. The Directions provided for the application to be determined on the papers unless any party requested a hearing. No party has requested a hearing. The applicant has filed a bundle in in support of the application. The Application 1. On 18 November 2022, the Applicant manager applied for retrospective dispensation from the statutory duty to consult in respect of various repairs to the flat roof covering at 93 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] ("[NAME]"). 2. [NAME] is a mid-terrace five storey Victorian building which has been converted to form 5 (formally 7) self-contained flats. Water ingress into the top flat was showing in multiple locations. The application stated that initial investigations had commenced by [NAME] in order to established the exact cause of the water ingress and the proposed remedial works. At that stage, there are no details of costings or the exact nature of the repairs. It was said that the urgent nature the repairs were necessary to order to make the building watertight following significant water damage to the upper floor flats.
3. At p.22-23 of the Bundle, the Applicant has provided a number of quotations and invoices: (i) on 13 August 2021, [COMPANY] provided quotes for two options, £2,420 + VAT to coat the party wall with Sika Liquid Plastics or £1,660 + VAT to coat the part wall with resin; (ii) on 24 November 2022, [NAME] invoiced £235 for decorative works; and (iii) on 15 February 2023, [NAME] invoiced £5,370.48 in respect of works to the roof chimney pots and clay vents. The total cost of the works is not entirely clear.
4. On 21 December 2022, the Tribunal issued Directions. The Directions stated that the Tribunal would determine the application on the papers, unless any party requested an oral hearing. No party has done so.
5. By 3 February 2023, the Applicant was directed to send to the leaseholders by email, hand delivery or first-class post: (i) copies of the application form (excluding any list of respondents’ names and addresses) unless already sent by the applicant to the leaseholder/sublessee; (ii) If not already detailed in the application form a brief statement to explain the reasons for the application and a statement of costs to be incurred and (iii) the directions. The Applicant was further directed to display a copy of these in a prominent place in the common parts of [NAME]. On 12 January 2023, the Applicant confirmed that it had complied with this Direction.
3 6. By 24 February 2023, any leaseholder who opposed the application was directed to complete a Reply Form which was attached to the Directions and send it both to the Tribunal and to the Applicant. The leaseholder was further directed to send the Applicant a statement in response to the application. No leaseholder has returned a completed Reply Form opposing the application.
7. The Applicant has provided a Bundle of Documents (40 pages) in support of the application. It has also provided a copy of the lease for Flat 3.
8. Section 20ZA (1) of the Act provides: “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.”
9. The only issue which this Tribunal has been required to determine is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This application does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.
10. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant retrospective dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements. This is justified by the urgent need for the works. There is no suggestion that any prejudice has arisen. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant dispensation without any conditions.
11. The Directions make provision for the service of the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal will email a copy of its decision to the Applicant. The Applicant is responsible for serving a copy of the Tribunal’s decision on the Respondents.
Judge Robert Latham 15 May 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.
4 If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made by e-mail 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, [NAME] 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 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs to Foul Pumps
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Permits Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Allows Urgent Repairs Without Statutory Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Without Conditio…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Wins Urgent Roof Repairs Case Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Boiler Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
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 tribunal found it reasonable to waive the consultation requirements because the repairs were urgently needed.
- The leaseholders did not object to the application, indicating no prejudice was caused.
- The applicant complied with the directions to inform leaseholders about the application.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal allowed the landlord to skip the consultation process for urgent repairs to the flat roof.
Who was involved?
The landlord applied for permission to carry out urgent repairs without consulting the tenants.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the application because the repairs were urgent and necessary to prevent further water damage.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20ZA, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The urgency of the repairs and the need to prevent further water damage were the most important arguments.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might also be able to skip the consultation process if their repairs are deemed urgent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of water damage and the urgency of the repairs were presented.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions 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 involving property repairs and consultation requirements.
