Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent roof repairs. The decision was made to ensure the safety and integrity of the building.
⚖️ Legal holding
It is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements where urgent works are necessary.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tribunal to grant permission to skip consultation requirements for 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 due to 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 roof repairs at a Victorian terraced house. Judge Robert Latham presided over the case.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BG/LDC/2021/0229 HMCTS code : P: PAPER REMOTE Property : 105 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] ([NAME]) Respondents : [redacted] : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :
Judge Robert Latham Peter Roberts DipArch RIBA
Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 15 November 2021
DECISION
The Tribunal grants this [NAME] to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 without condition in respect of urgent works to the roof.
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 [NAME] 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 [NAME]. The [NAME]
1. On 31 August 2021, the Tribunal received an [NAME] from [RESPONDENT] (“TPM”) who are managing agents for the landlord, [APPELLANT]. The Applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”). The [NAME] relates to 105 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“the Property”). This is a Victorian terraced house which has been converted into two self- contained flats. The leaseholders are Miss [NAME] and Mr [NAME].
2. In July, TPM received a report that there was a substantial leak into the top floor flat during a period of bad weather. TPM appointed [NAME] to attend. They provided a quote of £1,140 to supply a scaffolding tower, clear the guttering, refix the slipped slate and remove the debris from site. As there was no access to the roof from the flat, scaffolding was required. Due to the urgency of the works, the contractor was instructed to proceed.
3. On 24 September, the Tribunal issued Directions. The Tribunal stated that it would determine the [NAME] on the papers, unless any party requested an oral hearing. No party has done so.
4. By 8 October, the Applicant was directed to send to each of the leaseholders (and any residential sublessees) by email, hand delivery or first-class post: (i) copies of the [NAME] form (excluding any list of respondents’ names and addresses) unless also sent by the Applicant; (ii) if not already detailed in the [NAME] form, a brief explanation for the reasons for the [NAME] and (iii) a copy of the directions. The Applicant was also directed to display a copy in a prominent position in the common parts of the Property.
5. On 11 October, the Applicant confirmed that it had complied with this Direction.
6. By 22 October, any leaseholder who opposed the [NAME] was directed to complete a Reply Form which was attached to the Directions and email it both to the Tribunal and to the Applicant. The leaseholder was further directed to send the applicant a statement in response to the
3 [NAME]. No leaseholder has returned a completed Reply Form opposing the [NAME].
7. The Applicant has emailed the tribunal a bundle of documents in support of their [NAME]. The bundle includes a copy of the lease for the Ground Floor Flat.
8. 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.”
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 [NAME] 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 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 two leaseholders.
Judge Robert Latham 15 November 2021
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.
4 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repair Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Wins Urgent Roof Repairs Case Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Tenant Consult…
- 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) Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Retrospective Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works 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 works are deemed urgent and necessary.
- There is an urgent need for repairs or works.
- Statutory consultation requirements can be waived in urgent situations.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No relevant cases provided where the claim was denied.
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 repairs.
Who was involved?
The landlord and the tenants were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were urgent and necessary for the safety of the building.
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 argument that mattered most was the urgent need for the repairs to ensure the safety of the building.
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 be able to bypass consultation requirements if the works are deemed urgent and necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the urgent need for repairs and the potential danger to the building 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 always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property law.
