Tribunal Rejects Claimant's Request for Roof Work Dispensation
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal rejected the claimant's request for dispensation from consulting tenants about roof repairs. The tribunal found the works were not urgent or necessary, thus denying the request.
⚖️ Legal holding
The tribunal must consider the necessity and urgency of works before granting dispensation from consultation requirements.
📖 What the law says
The appropriate tribunal can grant a determination to waive consultation requirements for qualifying works if it finds it reasonable to do so. Qualifying works refer to works on a building or other premises. The consultation requirements involve providing details of proposed works to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenants to suggest additional estimators, considering tenant observations, and giving reasons for certain actions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal denied the claimant's request for dispensation from consultation requirements for roof works.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) denied the claimant's request for dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 regarding roof works to two blocks at Pinewood Court, London, due to the lack of urgency and necessity of the works.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Refused
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AY/LDC/2019/0204
Property :
[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant :
[redacted]
Representative :
[NAME]
Respondents :
[redacted] : N/A
Types of Application : Section 20ZA - dispensation Tribunal Members :
Judge Tagliavini Mr. T Sennett MA FCIEH
Date and venue of hearing
: 31 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Date of Decision
: 31 January 2020
DECISION _____________________________________________________________________
2
Decisions of the tribunal
I. The tribunal refuses the Applicant dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the roof works to the two blocks at the subject property as set out in the letter dated 14 August 2019 from [NAME].
_________________________________________________
The application
1. This is an application made under the provisions of s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 seeking the tribunal’s dispensation of the consultation requirements under section 20 of that Act.
The premises
2. The premises comprise a purpose built 1960’s block in 2 units.
The hearing
3. As the parties did not request an oral hearing the tribunal determined this matter on the bundle of documents provided by the Applicant.
The Applicant’s evidence
4. In its application and accompanying emailed statement dated 29 January 2020 the Applicant stated that works had been carried out to the roof of each unit, as a pre-emptive measure in order to avoid any potential water penetration to the units, as identified in the Planned Maintenance Inspection and Report from [NAME] dated May 2019.
5. The tribunal was informed that the works identified in the letter dated 14 August 2019 from [NAME] have been carried out in the sum of £6,700.
The Respondent’s evidence
6. No Respondent contacted the tribunal to register any opposition or agreement to this application.
The tribunal’s decisions and reasons
7. The tribunal is satisfied that the [NAME] have been notified of this application and have had an opportunity to respond and make known any objections they may have to this application.
3
8. The tribunal has considered the nature and extent of the works carried out and is not satisfied from the Applicant’s evidence, that these works were required as a matter of emergency. The tribunal finds that there were no reported complaints of water penetration through the roof and that these works were not urgent and were speculative in nature.
9. Therefore, the tribunal refuses to grant the dispensation sought by the Applicant for the roof works to the two units at the subject property address despite the lack of any objection having been received from the [NAME].
Signed: Judge Tagliavini
Dated: 31 January 2020
Rights of Appeal
1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with this case.
2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.
3. 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 each reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.
4. The application 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 making the application is seeking.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Lease Extension Premium Set at £32,300 - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Successfully Obtains Right to Manage Premises
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Ordered to Repay Rent for Unlicensed HMO Operation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freehold Valuation Determined by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charge Demands
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Four-Bedroom Property Under Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Leasehold Enfranchisement Premium
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 was satisfied that the leaseholders were notified and had an opportunity to respond to the application.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant failed to prove that the roof works were urgently needed.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal denied the claimant's request for dispensation from the consultation requirements for roof works.
Who was involved?
The claimant, represented by Moss & Co, and various leaseholders.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided against the claimant because the works were deemed speculative and not urgent.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 20ZA and Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the works were not urgent or necessary was critical.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure their works are truly urgent and necessary before requesting dispensation.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing the works were not urgent or necessary was crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, the decision 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 property law.
