First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Asbestos Removal Works

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/38UJ/LDC/2025/0673 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT] (Agent) Respondents :

[redacted] contribute at the Property

Representative : None Landlord : [APPELLANT] of Application :

S2oZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - dispensation of consultation requirements

Tribunal : [COMPANY] :

First tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision : 13 November 2025 DECISION

2 Decision

1. The Tribunal grants dispensation from the requirements on the applicant to consult all [NAME] under S.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the qualifying works referred to.

2. At the date of application it was stated that construction work had not yet started. (Form Leasehold 5 Box 6). It was understood that the applicant’s agent acting for the applicant, was able to recharge costs under the service charge provisions to all [NAME] in the Property.

Background

3. The applicant appears to act for the landlord and/or the management company under the leases and is seeking, from the Tribunal under [POSTCODE] of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) dispensation from all or any of the consultation requirements under S.20 of the Act, of [NAME] of related dwellings, who might be liable for service charge contributions arising from works.

4. This application appeared to concern urgent works to remedy a communal roof leak above a first floor flat, which was arising and affecting the insulation above and ceiling tiles and other finishes within, the demise of a flat as a consequence of a source of a communal water leak. It was unclear at this stage if the works and their cost in part or whole would also be the subject of an insurance claim against the block policy at the Property, for the benefit of the leasehold flats at the Property.

Directions

5. Directions dated 2 October 2025 were issued without an oral hearing by Legal [NAME]. They identified that the respondents were the [NAME] of the various dwellings – flats at the Property. The Directions provided for the Tribunal to determine the application on or after 13 November 2025, unless a party applied by 13 October 2025 for a hearing.

6. The applicant was to send to each of the [NAME] of the dwellings at the Property at least; a copy of the application form, brief description of the works, an estimate of the costs of the works including any professional fees and VAT and anything else relied upon, with a copy of the Directions.

7. The applicant was to file with the Tribunal a letter by 9 October 2025, confirming how and when it had been done.

8. [NAME] who objected to the application were to send a reply form and statement to the Tribunal and applicant, by 23 October 2025. The

3 applicant was to prepare a bundle of documents including the application form, Directions, sample lease and all other documents on which they wanted to rely; all responses from [NAME], a certificate of compliance referred to above; with two copies to the Tribunal and one to each respondent [NAME] by 30 October 2025.

9. In the event, the Tribunal did not receive any requests for a hearing, nor did it receive any forms in support of or objection to respondents either directly or indirectly via the bundle.

10. The Tribunal determined the case on the bundle received from the applicant, only.

Applicant’s Case

11. The application Form Leasehold 5, dated 5 August 2025, at box 2.3 appears to confirm that the Property is 2 blocks of flats, over 2 floors, 6No. flats on each floor, 12No. flats in all.

12. The application at box 6.1 confirms that these are to be qualifying works, but that they had not been started, at the date of application anyway. They were not part of a long term contract. At box 8.1 the applicant was content for paper determination and applied for it, at box 8.2, to be dealt with by [NAME] because it was: “Asbestos related”.

13. The application at ‘Grounds for seeking dispensation’, box 6.5.1 stated: “A leak was coming down through the communal ceiling. A roofer had a look in the loft space. He could not find anything. He believes the leak is in the ceiling void between the ceiling panel and the loft floor. The ceiling panels are asbestos so we need a specialist to remove them. Due to the water ingress the panels are near to collapsing.” It was unclear as to the origins of the water, from pipes within the Property, or through the roof or from condensation from the underside.

14. The application box 6.5.2 described the consultation that had been carried out or is proposed to be carried out. “S.20 Notice 1 issued today (5 August 2025).”

15. The application at box 6.5.3. explained why they sought dispensation of all or any of the consultation requirements. “Urgent removal of asbestos ceiling panels required.”

16. A copy of a sample completed lease dated 17 June 1977, of a flat at No.1 within the Property between the then landlord [RESPONDENT] of the whole Property and [NAME] [APPELLANT] the management company and the then tenant of No.1. is provided.

4

17. The applicant included a statement at bundle p.8: “In July 2025 it was reported that there was a leak coming down from the ceiling tiles in Flats 1-6 on the top floor. Initial investigations found that the leak was probably coming from the void between the ceiling tiles and the loft space however the tiles that needed to be removed contained asbestos. The leak was getting progressively worse and there was a risk that the water ingress could cause the tiles to break releasing the asbestos into the air. [APPELLANT] applied for dispensation and carried out the works straight away due to the urgent nature. The tiles were removed and the plasterboard fitted in its place and subsequently decorated. The cost of the work was £4200 including VAT.”

18. A quotation #1794 dated 23 July 2025 from [NAME] for a total of £4200 including VAT was included in the bundle. The quote was to pull down the entire ceiling in 1No. flat with an area of between 4 and 6m2 and to safely remove the asbestos tiles. This price included independent testing before during and after the work. Although the quote included a price for a new plasterboard and single plaster skim ceiling at an additional £324, this figure was in addition to the work and cost of removal of the ceiling tiles and the work and figure were not within the £4200 including VAT. This price excluded a separate air test.

19. If the applicant included a list of names and addresses of [NAME] names affected by the expenditure and confirmed what they had sent to all of these potential respondents a copy of the names and flats concerned was not received by the Tribunal determining the application.

Respondent’s Case

20. The applicant confirmed that the respondent [NAME] had been sent the documents specified by the Tribunal in its earlier Directions.

21. The Tribunal did not receive any objections or other representations from the [NAME], either through the applicant, or directly.

The Law

22. S.18 (1) of the Act provides that a service charge is an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent, which is payable for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or landlord’s costs of management, and the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the costs incurred by the landlord. S.20 provides for the limitation of service charges in the event that the statutory consultation requirements are not met. The consultation requirements apply where the works are qualifying works (as in this case) and only £250 can be recovered from a tenant in respect of such works unless the

5 consultation requirements have either been complied with or dispensed with. For long term contracts, the cap on contributions from [NAME] is £100 per annum.

23. Dispensation is dealt with by S.20 ZA of the Act which provides:- “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.”

24. Dispensation is dealt with by S.20 ZA of the Act which provides:- “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.”

25. The consultation requirements for qualifying works under qualifying long term agreements are set out in detail at Schedule 3 of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

26. The consultation requirements for qualifying works for which public notice is not required are set out in detail at Schedule 4 of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.

Tribunal’s Decision

27. The scheme of the provisions is designed to protect the interests of [NAME] and whether it is reasonable to dispense with any particular requirements in an individual case must be considered in relation to the scheme of the provisions and its purpose.

28. The Tribunal must have a cogent reason for dispensing with the consultation requirements, the purpose of which is that [NAME] who may ultimately pay the bill are fully aware of what works are being proposed, the cost thereof and have the opportunity to nominate contractors where there is no public procurement.

29. The correspondence showed that the applicant generally complied with the Directions.

30. The terms of this Dispensation from the requirements of Section 20, are:

6 31. That this covers the work set out in the single quotation above from the [NAME] at their prices as received by the applicant and sent to the Tribunal. These are reflected and extended to include all of the work invoiced to the applicant from the contractor selected. No dispensation for any prior report, nor ancillary work before or after whichever quote or estimate is accepted by the applicant, is included in this dispensation, other than in the foregoing quoted works. This dispensation specifically excludes the supply and installation of the new ceiling and skim and air test offered in addition as neither were part of the application.

32. It was noted by the Tribunal that the cost of investigating and repairing the cause of the water leak above this presumably first floor ceiling was also not the subject of this application. If those works were also completed for the landlord then their cost lies outside of this dispensation as well.

33. These works, their extent, quality, and price remain subject to subsequent challenge by any respondent [NAME], both of the item itself and/or the amount reasonably payable, in the usual way. Other than this no other items are included or given dispensation because they were not specifically sought. Those other costs including any professional fees associated with the work will be subject to the annual cap of £250 per [NAME] for a contract for works rechargeable under a service charge or to a further application for dispensation if required. This is because they do not form part of this application for dispensation.

34. The applicant will meet all of its costs arising from the making and determination of this application. However these costs can be recovered from any [NAME] as service charge and/ or as an administrative charge if the lease of each unit allows for it, subject to the usual scope for [NAME] challenge to its reasonableness and payability.

35. In making its determination of this application, it does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs are reasonable or indeed payable by the [NAME]. The Tribunal’s determination is limited to this application for dispensation of consultation requirements under [POSTCODE] of the Act; in this case, on terms.

[NAME]

13 November 2025

7 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 either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision.

Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).

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).