VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Grants Asbestos Removal Dispensation Without Conditions

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements to urgently remove damaged asbestos boards in a car park. The decision was made based on the urgent health and safety needs of the residents.

⚖️ Legal holding

It is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 where there is an urgent health and safety issue.

Topics

asbestos removalconsultation requirements

Provisions

section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20ZA

The appropriate tribunal can decide to waive consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to consult tenants about proposed works or agreements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent asbestos removal.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted an application for dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, allowing for the urgent removal of damaged asbestos boards in the car park of a residential property. Judge Robert Latham decided the application was reasonable due to the urgent health and safety concerns.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AF/LDC/2020/0215 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : P: PAPER REMOTE Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [APPELLANT] Respondent: [redacted]

The eight leaseholders named on the [NAME] of [NAME] : Dispensation with Consultation Requirements under section 20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal member :

Judge Robert Latham

Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 2 February 2021

DECISION

The Tribunal grants this [NAME] to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 without condition in respect of the removal of damaged asbestos boards in the car park.

2 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPER REMOTE. The Directions provided for the [NAME] to be determined on the papers unless any party requested a hearing. No party has requested a hearing. The applicant has filed a bundle in in support of the [NAME]. The [NAME]

1. The Tribunal has received an [NAME] from [APPELLANT] (“the applicant”), dated 6 November 2020, seeking dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”). The [NAME] relates to the purpose built block of flats at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (”the Block”). Nine leaseholders are affected by this [NAME]. Since 23 September 2020, the block has been managed by [COMPANY]. They state that they inherited numerous Health and Safety issues that need to be urgently addressed. The [NAME] relates to the removal of damaged asbestos boards in the car park.

2. On 9 December 2020, the Tribunal issued Directions. The Tribunal stated that it would determine the [NAME] on the papers, unless any party requested an oral hearing. No party has done so, 3. By 18 December, the applicant was directed to send to each of the leaseholders by email, hand delivery or first-class post, copies of the [NAME] form (excluding any list of respondents’ names and addresses) and a copy of the directions. The applicant was further directed to display a copy of both in a prominent place in the common parts of the Block.

4. On 16 December, the applicant confirmed that on 15 December, it had emailed a copy of the [NAME] to the leaseholders and displayed a copy in the Block.

5. By 8 January 2021, any leaseholder who opposed the [NAME] was directed to complete a Reply Form which was attached to the Directions and email it both to the Tribunal and to the applicant. The leaseholder was further directed to send the applicant a statement in response to the [NAME]. No leaseholder has returned a completed Reply Form. No party requested an oral hearing.

6. On 23 January, the applicant emailed the tribunal a bundle of documents in support of their [NAME]. The bundle includes a copy of the lease for Flat 5, and a number of documents relating to the asbestos in the garage.

3 7. Section 20ZA (1) of the Act provides: “Where an [NAME] is made to the appropriate 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.”

8. The only issue which this Tribunal has been required to determine is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the statutory consultation requirements. This [NAME] does not concern the issue of whether any service charge costs will be reasonable or payable.

9. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements. This is justified by the urgent need for the works. There is no suggestion that any prejudice has arisen. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant dispensation without any conditions.

10. The Directions made provision for the service of the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal will send, by email, a copy of its decision to the applicant. The Tribunal directs the applicant to send a copy to the leaseholders.

Judge Robert Latham 2 February 2021

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 [NAME] for permission must be made by e-mail to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

4 The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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

  • The tribunal found it reasonable to waive consultation because the work was urgently needed.
  • No leaseholder returned a form opposing the application.
  • No party requested an oral hearing, allowing the decision to be made on papers.
  • The applicant confirmed they had emailed the application to leaseholders and displayed it in the block.
  • There was no indication that anyone was harmed by the lack of consultation.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision allowed the landlord to bypass consultation requirements for urgent asbestos removal.

Who was involved?

The landlord and leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that it was reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements due to the urgent health and safety issue.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the urgent need for the works to address health and safety issues.

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 bypass consultation requirements if there is an urgent health and safety issue.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the urgent health and safety issues was likely considered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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 matters.

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.