VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Asbestos Removal

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to skip the usual consultation process for removing dangerous asbestos from a building's basement. The works were urgent to protect the health and safety of residents and staff.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 where works are necessary for health and safety reasons.

Topics

asbestos removalhealth and safetyconsultation requirements

Provisions

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s20ZAService Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

Under this section, a landlord can apply to a tribunal for permission to skip certain consultation requirements related to building works or long-term agreements if the tribunal finds it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements themselves are defined by regulations set by the Secretary of State.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

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

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for urgent asbestos removal works in a block of flats. The works were deemed necessary for health and safety reasons.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LDC/2019/0063 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : Written Application by [RESPONDENT](Managing Agents) Respondent : [redacted] Representative : None. Type of application : Application for dispensation from consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 3 June 2019

DECISION

Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements under s20 ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The application 1. The Applicant seeks dispensation from the consultation requirements under s20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

2. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the Appendix to this decision. The hearing 3. A written application was made by [COMPANY], the managing agents of the property. The case was decided on paper and no appearances were made. The tribunal considered the written application form and the asbestos report and estimates. The background 4. The property which is the subject of this application is a block of 17 flats. The block has a service basement containing plant rooms, heating pipes, residents storage units and the porters office.

5. A specimen lease has not been provided. A list of leaseholders has been provided with confirmation from the agents that they have been notified of the proposed works. No representations have been received objecting to the application as to the scope of the works or appropriateness of the application.

6. Works are required remove asbestos in the basement which has been identified as being in a dangerous condition requiring immediate removal and as a consequence the basement is out of use.

7. A detailed asbestos survey prepared by [NAME] has been supplied. The report is based on an inspection carried out on the 12th and 13th of April 2019. The application was made on 29 April 2019.

8. Three estimates have been supplied for removal of the asbestos from Contractor Tender sum (excl VAT) [NAME] £39,690.00 [NAME] £33,090.00 [NAME] £32,460.00

9. The application records that it is proposed to instruct [NAME] with a start date for the works of 29 April 2019. In view of the urgency of the work dispensation is sought from the consultation requirements. The tribunal’s decision 10. The tribunal grants dispensation from the consultation requirements of under s20 ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 11. The works are required to ensure the health and safety of the residents and staff working at the building and to allow access to the plant areas for maintenance. The leaseholders are aware of the position and have not objected. The tribunal is satisfied that the works are necessary as a matter of urgency in the circumstances and for the convenience of the residents, grants dispensation.

Name: A [NAME]: 3 June 2019

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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. 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 such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. 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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Appendix of relevant legislation

S20 Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements

(1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) a leasehold valuation tribunal.

(2) In this section "relevant contribution", in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement.

(3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount.

(5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.

(6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount.

(7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.[FN1]

[FN1] ss.20-20ZA substituted for s.20 subject to savings specified in SI 2004/669 art.2(d)(i)-(vi) by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (2002 c.15), Pt 2 c 5 s 151

[POSTCODE] Consultation requirements: supplementary

(1) Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation 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.

(2) In section 20 and this section— "qualifying works" means works on a building or any other premises, and "qualifying long term agreement" means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement— (a) if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or (b) in any circumstances so prescribed.

(4) In section 20 and this section "the consultation requirements" means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord— (a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the [COMPANY] representing them, (b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements, (c) to invite tenants or the [COMPANY] to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates, (d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the [COMPANY] in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and (e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements.

(6) Regulations under section 20 or this section— (a) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and (b) may make different provision for different purposes.

(7) Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.[...] [FN1] [FN1] ss.20-20ZA substituted for s.20 subject to savings specified in SI 2004/669 art.2(d)(i)-(vi) by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (2002 c.15), Pt 2 c 5 s 151

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 necessary for health and safety reasons.
  • Works are urgent and recommended following a risk assessment.
  • Dispensation is sought under conditions that align with legal requirements.
  • The works are deemed essential and urgent by relevant authorities.
  • The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant dispensation in such cases.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • No specific cases provided that went against the claimant.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It allowed the landlord to skip the usual consultation process for urgent asbestos removal works.

Who was involved?

The landlord and 17 leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were necessary for health and safety reasons and leaseholders had not objected.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s20ZA and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the works were necessary for health and safety reasons and leaseholders had not objected.

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 also be able to skip the consultation process if their works are urgent and necessary for health and safety reasons.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The asbestos report and estimates for the works mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

Yes, it is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.

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.