VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for a landlord to carry out urgent roof repairs without consulting tenants first. The repairs were necessary to prevent water damage.

⚖️ Legal holding

It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements where there is an urgent need for repairs.

Topics

tenancy disputesstatutory consultation requirements

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can decide to waive all or some of the 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 for urgent roof repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted an application for dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent roof repairs to prevent water penetration. The Tribunal found it reasonable to dispense with the requirements due to the urgent need for the works.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AQ/LDC/2024/0230 Property : 207 and 209 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] ([COUNSEL]) Respondents : [redacted] : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :

Judge Robert Latham

Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 25 November 2024

DECISION

The Tribunal grants this [NAME] to dispense retrospectively with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 without condition in respect of urgent works to repair the roof to prevent water penetration.

2 The [NAME]

1. By an [NAME], dated 12 August 2024, the Applicant applies for retrospective dispensation from the statutory duty to consult in respect of urgent works to repair the roof of [ADDRESS] to prevent water penetration. The works were carried out by [NAME] who submitted an invoice, dated 13 April 2023, for £900 in respect of the works. The cost of the works will exceed the statutory threshold of £250 per flat and dispensation is therefore required.

2. On 5 September 2024, the Tribunal issued Directions. The Directions stated that the Tribunal would determine the [NAME] on the papers, unless any party requested an oral hearing. No party has done so.

3. By 18 September 2024, the Applicant was directed to send to the leaseholders by email, hand delivery or first-class post copies of (a) the [NAME] form; (b) the Directions; and (c) the relevant invoice identifying the nature and extent of the works. On 6 September, the Applicant confirmed that it had complied with this Direction.

4. By 2 October 2024, any [NAME] who opposed the [NAME] 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 [NAME] was further directed to send the Applicant a statement in response to the [NAME]. No [NAME] has returned a completed Reply Form opposing the [NAME].

5. The Applicant has provided a Bundle of Documents (32 pages) in support of the [NAME]. It has also provided a copy of the lease for [ADDRESS].

6. Section 20ZA (1) of the Act provides: “Where an [NAME] 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.”

7. 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 [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

8. 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

3 any prejudice has arisen. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant dispensation without any conditions. 9. The Tribunal will serve a copy of this decision on the Applicant and the two Respondents. Judge Robert Latham 25 November 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 [NAME] 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 [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 tribunal found it reasonable to waive consultation rules due to the urgent need for roof repairs to stop water.
  • The leaseholders did not return any forms opposing the application for dispensation.
  • The applicant confirmed that it had sent copies of the application, directions, and invoice to the leaseholders.
  • There was no indication that any party suffered harm because of the lack of consultation.

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 dispense with the consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs.

Who was involved?

The landlord applied for dispensation, and the tenants were respondents.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the urgent repairs were necessary to prevent 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 water damage was the central argument.

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 get dispensation for urgent repairs if they can show the repairs are necessary.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The invoice for the repairs and the confirmation of compliance with the consultation process were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal 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 landlord and tenant disputes.

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.