Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Health and Safety Works
📌 In brief
The Tribunal allowed the landlord to proceed with necessary works to clear and sanitise the roof space without consulting the leaseholders, due to significant health and safety risks posed by pigeon contamination. This decision was made under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
⚖️ Legal holding
It is reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements when the works are necessary to address significant health and safety risks.
📖 What the law says
Under this section, a tribunal can decide to waive consultation requirements for certain works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. The consultation requirements refer to rules set by the Secretary of State that require landlords to consult with tenants or recognized tenants' associations before proceeding with works or agreements.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for necessary works due to health and safety risks.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted dispensation from consultation requirements for works involving clearing and sanitising the roof space, which had become contaminated by pigeons, posing a health and safety risk to residents. The decision was made under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Reference : BIR/47UC/LDC/2019/0010
Subject Property : [APPELLANT]
25 [ADDRESS]
[POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondents : [redacted]
[APPELLANT]
(listed in Schedule to application)
Type of Application : Application under section 20ZA
of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for dispensation from consultation requirements in respect of qualifying works at the subject property
Tribunal Member : Deputy Regional Judge [NAME] of decision : 4 October 2019
_________________________________________________
DECISION
____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
1 On 19 September 2019 the First-tier Tribunal ([NAME]) received an application from the Applicant under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’), seeking dispensation from some or all of the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the 1985 Act in respect of qualifying works at the subject property.
2 The qualifying works involved clearing and sanitizing the roof space, which had become contaminated by pigeons, resulting in a potential risk to the health and safety of the residents.
3 The only issue for the Tribunal is whether or not it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements. A decision dispensing with those requirements does not preclude a subsequent application for a determination that the costs of the work were unreasonable.
4 On 23 September 2019, the Tribunal invited the Applicant to obtain from each of the [NAME] a signed statement indicating that they agreed to the work being carried out without compliance with the full statutory consultation requirements.
5 All the [NAME] provided such a statement.
6 In the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that in relation to the qualifying works referred to in paragraph 2 above it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements imposed by section 20 of the 1985 Act and the Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003.
7 In accordance with section 20ZA of the 1985 Act the Tribunal therefore determines that those consultation requirements shall be dispensed with.
4 October 2019
[NAME] Judge
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Cladding Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Council Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Asbestos Removal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Asbestos Removal Without Leaseholder Consultatio…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lighting Upgrades
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Exemption for Urgent Fire Safety Measures
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Emergency Sewage Pump Work
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Allows Dispensation for Urgent Repairs to Address Health and Safet…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation from Consultation Requirements Under the Land…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements Due …
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 works are considered urgent and necessary for health and safety reasons.
- Dispensing with consultation requirements is reasonable if there is an urgent health and safety risk.
- No leaseholders suffer prejudice as a result of dispensing with consultation requirements.
- The works address significant health and safety risks.
- Management companies can be dispensed from consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary for safety reasons.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal allowed the landlord to proceed with necessary works to clear and sanitise the roof space without consulting the leaseholders.
Who was involved?
The landlord and leaseholders of the property were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant dispensation because the works were necessary to address significant health and safety risks.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charge (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 to address significant health and safety risks.
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 seek dispensation from consultation requirements if the works are necessary to address significant health and safety risks.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Statements from the leaseholders agreeing to the works being carried out without compliance with the full statutory consultation requirements mattered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.