VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Asbestos Removal Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass the usual consultation process with tenants regarding asbestos removal works, due to significant health and safety risks identified in the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may be dispensed from consulting tenants about major works if there is a significant health and safety risk.

Topics

tenancyasbestos removalhealth and safety

Provisions

section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for asbestos removal works.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal granted dispensation from the consultation requirements for asbestos removal works in a residential property, citing significant health and safety risks. Judge D.R. Whitney presided over the case.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/00ML/LDC/2019/0091

Property

:

3 [APPELLANT], Hove [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[NAME]) [COMPANY]

Respondents

:

[redacted]

Representative

:

Type of Application

:

To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge D. R. Whitney

Date and Venue of Hearing

:

Determination on Papers

Date of Decision

:

17th December 2019

DECISION

2

The Application

1. This is an application for dispensation from the consultation requirements provided for in section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

2. The completed application was received on 7th November 2019.

3. The application seeks dispensation from the need to consult in respect of works in the loft to remove asbestos which has been disturbed. The Application refers to a risk to occupants of the building due to an unused lift shaft which has accessible risers on each floor.

4. The Property is a detached period building with 19 leasehold flats.

5. Directions were issued on 12th November 2019. On the 18th November 2019 the Applicants representative confirmed a copy of the Application had been displayed at the property and sent to all leaseholders together with a copy of the directions.

6. The directions required the leaseholders to return a pro-forma to the Tribunal indicating whether they agreed or disagreed with the application and whether they consented to a determination on the papers.

7. The Tribunal has received a bundle of papers. No response has been received by the Tribunal from any [NAME].

Determination

8. The bundle at tab D page 69 contains a statement from the managing agents explaining the history. It would appear that previous agents had discovered that asbestos in the loft had been disturbed and was considered a health and safety risk.

9. The new agent quite rightly prioritised the removal of the asbestos. The agent obtained quotes and method statements from [NAME] and it would appear that the works were completed in November 2019.

10. The tribunal observes that no comments, either supportive or objecting, have been received from any [NAME].

11. The tribunal has read and considered carefully all the papers within the bundle.

12. The tribunal is satisfied that works were required to remove the asbestos. Without removal there was a risk to the health and safety of the residents. Whilst the disturbance of the asbestos has been known for sometime the tribunal notes the new agent was only appointed in

3 May 2019. As the application indicates they have following initial investigations treated the asbestos works as a priority. The tribunal wholeheartedly agrees with this approach.

13. Considering all matters the tribunal is satisfied that the works were required. No [NAME] has raised any objection to the works. On balance it is just and fair to grant dispensation.

14. The Tribunal dispenses with the consultation requirements in respect of the major works to remove asbestos from the loft.

15. This decision is confined to the dispensation from the consultation requirements in respect of the major works. The Tribunal has made no determination on whether the costs of those works are reasonable or payable. A [NAME] retains the right to challenge the costs of the works by making application to the Tribunal under section 27A of the 1985 Act.

Judge D. R. Whitney

4

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, 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:

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

  • Works are considered urgent and necessary to address immediate health and safety risks.
  • Dispensation from consultation requirements is granted when the works are urgent and necessary.
  • There is no undue prejudice caused to tenants as a result of the dispensation.
  • The works are deemed essential to maintain safety and prevent future damage.
  • The landlord meets the conditions specified under s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for obtaining dispensation.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors listed against the claimant based on the provided similar cases.)

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to dispense with the requirement to consult tenants about asbestos removal works.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the leaseholders of a residential property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because of the significant health and safety risks posed by the asbestos in the loft.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, specifically section 20, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the significant health and safety risk posed by the asbestos in the loft.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to bypass the consultation process if there is a significant health and safety risk.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the health and safety risk posed by the asbestos was critical.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision can apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for permission to appeal.

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 legal 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.