Managing agents dread roof works for a reason that has little to do with roofing. The works themselves are routine. The consultation is not. A notice of intention lands on doormats, leaseholders see a figure with several zeros, and the first reply is some version of what exactly is wrong with it and who says so.
This article is about answering that question before it is asked, and about where aerial evidence fits in the Section 20 process.
The statutory frame in one paragraph
Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the 2003 regulations, a landlord must consult leaseholders before carrying out qualifying works that will cost any one of them more than £250. The process has stages: a notice of intention describing the works and inviting observations, a statement of estimates following the tender, and in some cases a notice of reasons. Skip or mishandle the process and the recoverable contribution can be capped at £250 per leaseholder unless a tribunal grants dispensation.
The regulations require you to describe the proposed works and to have regard to observations. They do not require you to prove the works are needed. In practice, though, the whole consultation goes better when you can.
Why the reason is the real objection
Across most contested consultations the underlying complaint is the same: leaseholders cannot see the roof, have never seen a report, and are being asked to trust a contractor who benefits from the work. The number is a proxy for that mistrust.
A dated, located set of photographs of every slope, with the defects numbered and described in plain words, changes the conversation from why should we believe you to which of these do we need to fix now. That is a much better argument to be having, and it is one you can win.
Twenty to fifty roofs on one estate, flown to a standard shot list, reviewed by a named person, delivered as component rows your asset system can import.
What to commission and when
Timing matters more than most agents expect. Evidence gathered before the notice of intention supports the description of works. Evidence gathered after leaseholders have objected looks like justification after the fact, and a tribunal may see it that way too.
The sequence that works:
- Survey first. A drone roof survey of the block, flown to a standard shot list, reviewed by a named person, delivered as numbered observations with priority codes and an annotated overview of each slope. For a typical block this is a fraction of the cost of the access equipment the roofer would otherwise need to price the job.
- Specification second. Give the survey to a surveyor or the roofing contractor and have them write a specification that refers to the numbered observations. Replace slipped tiles at observations 3, 7 and 12; rebed ridge at 4; renew flashing at 9. Tenders against a numbered specification are comparable; tenders against repair roof as necessary are not.
- Notice of intention third. Describe the works with reference to the survey and offer to share it. Most leaseholders will not read forty pages, but the fact that it exists and is offered removes the largest objection.
- Estimates and observations. With a numbered specification, observations from leaseholders tend to be about scope and phasing rather than whether the works are needed at all. Those are conversations an agent can manage.
What the evidence should look like
Not every roof survey is useful for this purpose. The pack should have:
- Numbered observations each with a crop showing the defect circled, a component, a plain description and a priority code. A slope-by-slope narrative without numbers cannot be referenced by a specification.
- Annotated overviews of each slope with the callout numbers placed on the image, so a leaseholder can see that observation 7 is above their own flat.
- A named reviewer and the flight details, so the evidence has a provenance if it is ever challenged.
- Priority codes that separate the urgent from the planned. Leaseholders will accept that a slipped tile above a doorway is P1 and must be done now; they will resist being asked to fund a full re-cover on the same footing.
Insurers and reserve funds
Two side benefits are worth mentioning. Insurers increasingly ask for evidence of roof condition at renewal and treat an unsurveyed roof on an older block as an unknown risk. A survey on file supports both the renewal and any storm claim that follows, because there is a dated baseline to compare against.
And a reserve fund plan built on surveyed condition is far easier to defend at the annual meeting than one built on the age of the building. The west slope was re-covered in 1998 and shows widespread slippage; we are planning for it in 2029 is a sentence that ends arguments.