London RPT Panel Decision Summaries
(use CTRL+F to search on the page)
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AY/HIN/2006/0001
Local authority: LB Lambeth
Hearing date: 12th December 2006
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Collision & Entrapment, Structural Collapse & Falling Elements, Fire
Order: Appeal dismissed and Notice confirmed
Points of interest:
• Mitigation of a fire hazard is unlikely to be successfully achieved through the use of a battery smoke/heat detection system as suggested by the appellant.
• Reference to professional guidance, in this case from the London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority, was considered relevant in the assessment of risk and the specification of remedial work.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00BK/HIN/2007/0003
Local authority: LB City of Westminster
Hearing date: 10th May 2007
Notice served: Improvement Notice and Suspended Prohibition Order
Hazard: Entry by Intruders, Fire, Electrical Hazards, Food Safety, Falling on Stairs (Improvement Notice): Lighting (Suspended Prohibition Order)
Order: Appeal dismissed with Notice and Order confirmed
Points of interest:
• This was one of a block of flats in an “I” shaped layout, the flat having been converted from non-residential space at some time in the past. It had poor natural lighting and had no outlook. The tenant had been in occupation for 20 years and wanted to remain. The lighting hazard was the one upon which the Prohibition Order was served with that action being suspended until such time as the existing tenant left.
• The main ground of appeal was that the combination of an Improvement Notice and a Suspended Prohibition Order (SPO) was
unreasonable. It was argued that even if the requirements of the Improvement Notice were met (at a high cost), the respondent could still lift the suspension, bringing the prohibition into force, despite the expense already incurred in mitigating the other hazards.
• At the time of the hearing, no firm proposals were available as to how the lighting issue could be resolved although the respondent had previously indicated to the appellant that it was not impossible for the flat to be re-occupied in the future after the current tenant left as long as adequate work was carried out. Specific work was not detailed in the SPO.
• The RPT did not consider that the statement of reasons for the SPO had been sufficiently specific as to the dwelling in question and, rather, took the form of a proforma document. Inadequate explanation of the extent to which the respondent had taken the occupier’s views into account had been given although the RPT was convinced that this was the case. The RPT commented that the reasons for the most appropriate action should reflect the suggested criteria in the Enforcement Guidance.
• The RPT determined that the respondent did not need to provide a specific scheme of remedial work to mitigate the hazard within the SPO as they viewed this as not required of them under section 22(2)(e). Their view was that the words “any” and “consider” within the phrase “any remedial action which the local authority consider would, if taken in relation to the hazard, result in their revoking the order under section Edition 2, December 2009 Page 29 of 141 25” should allow the subsection to be construed so as not to impose an obligation to specify remedial works.
• The RPT considered the deficiencies and the hazard assessments for the hazards covered by each enforcement action separately and determined that the most appropriate action had been taken in the circumstances for the hazards found. They then considered whether the combination of the two courses of action was reasonable and determined that it was.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AG/HIN/2007/0009
Local authority: LB Camden
Hearing date: 29th August 2007
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Excess Cold
Order: Appeal Upheld and appellants costs awarded
Points of interest:
• Any enforcement action is invalid unless notice of an inspection is given under section 239 of the Housing Act 2004.
• When dealing with converted flats, the age of the dwelling concerned is most properly derived from the date of conversion rather than the date of original construction. To do otherwise may lead to a misleading assessment of the risk, as the “national average” could be incorrect.
• Accurate inspection notes are important: the RPT identified some discrepancies that appeared to cause it concern.
• The decision suggests that a mid-floor flat with two outside walls and having single glazed windows (secondary glazed to one outside wall), reasonably modern night storage heating supplemented with portable electric heaters is unlikely to constitute a category 1 Excess Cold hazard.
• The RPT referred to the lack of condensation and how cold it felt (or didn’t) when their inspection was made.
• This raises the issue that, perhaps, such observations would be a useful part of a justification of the likelihood of harm. Observing external and internal air temperatures might also add weight to the decision making process (Note-author comment, not RPT).
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AY/HIN/2007/0010
Local authority: LB Lambeth
Hearing date: 30th August 2007
Notice served: Improvement Notice (HMO)
Hazard: Excess Cold, Falling on stairs etc, Electrical Hazards, Fire, Food Safety, Personal Hygiene etc
Order: Appeal dismissed with Notice confirmed
Points of interest:
• This was a 3-storey property arranged as two non-self contained flats, occupied by two individuals living as separate households who shared a bathroom/WC.
• RPT determined that the ability of a tenant to apply for a government grant for heating is irrelevant to the person in control/managing having the responsibility to comply with the relevant requirements of a Notice. The tenant, even though eligible, is under no obligation to do so.
• A Prohibition Order under the RRO Fire Safety Order had previously been served by the London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority for an inadequate means of escape from fire, lack of a fire detection & alarm system etc. The (3 month) later Improvement Notice included the hazard of fire for similar reasons but no challenge was made against LB Lambeth’s decision to serve an Improvement Notice for this hazard. The RPT made no comment of the two different enforcement actions.
• Following the making of the Prohibition Order, one of the occupiers vacated although his possessions remained. The landlord did not obtain a court order for possession but initially tried to argue that as there was only one occupier, it was not an HMO. The RPT determined that as the tenant had vacated solely in response to the Prohibition Order (assisted to find alternative housing by the respondent), had left possessions and the landlord had not obtained a possession order from the court, the property was an HMO under the Housing Act 2004:
"the standard and converted building tests. RPT also confirmed it was an HMO (using the same tests) with both individuals in occupation (had been challenged)."
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AG/8IN/2007/11
Local authority: LB Camden
Hearing date: 6th September 2007
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Excess Cold
Order: Notice Varied
Points of interest:
• The provision of double glazing to replace single glazed, double hung sash, windows in reasonable condition may be unreasonable in a Victorian dwelling that has an adequate, modern, heating system and loft insulation to a good thickness (250mm). Window repairs might be justifiable but not their replacement.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AU/HIN/2007/0015
Local authority: LB Islington
Hearing date: 22nd October 2007
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Falling between levels
Order: Notice Varied
Points of interest:
• The dwelling had a second floor window with a cill height of 600mm and an additional upper casement that was difficult to open and close. Key-operated locks were fitted and the tenants had the keys. The ground level below was of paving slabs and steps.
• The Improvement Notice required the one casement to be eased/repaired and a limiter fixed to the bottom opening light to limit it to a 100mm opening height. The hazard had been assessed as a category 1.
• The RPT concluded that service of an Improvement Notice was the most appropriate action but determined that the hazard was a category 2.
• The Notice was varied to reflect this and to add the requirement to hang the window keys on a hook at a height above the reach of children under 5 years old.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AW/HIN/2007/0013
Local authority: LB Kensington & Chelsea
Hearing date: 16th November 2007
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Excess Cold, Falling on Level Surfaces
Order: Appeal dismissed with Notice confirmed, subject to variations
Points of interest:
• A tenant’s reluctance to apply for a Warmfront grant for a heating installation is not a ground for the person in control of a dwelling not having to comply with any requirement of an Improvement Notice as the tenant is under no obligation to do so.
• Directing a LA to pay a tenant’s housing benefit direct to the landlord/person in control does not come within the power of the RPT under section 230(5)(e) of the Housing Act 2004 (as was requested by the appellant in this case). The phrase “by way compensation, damages or otherwise” contained there in would not have been intended by Parliament to include a direction of payment of a statutory benefit.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AK/HIN/2007/0023
Local authority: LB Enfield
Hearing date: 13th February 2008 (Paper Determination)
Notice served: Improvement Notice (appeal was not against the underlying Notice but for costs as a result of the revoking of the Notice following the submission of an appeal against it and prior to that hearing)
Hazard: Unclear
Order: Upheld
Points of interest:
• LB Enfield was directed to reimburse the appellant their £150 application fee.
• As a result, LA’s may find themselves financially liable for costs should enforcement action be revoked following an appeal made against that action. LA’s cannot, without risk, “try their luck”. (Note-authors comment, not RPT)
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00BB/HIN/2008/0001
Local authority: LB Newham
Hearing date: 19th March 2008
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Numerous
Order: Notice Varied
Points of interest:
• LB Newham criticised for missing a number of deficiencies and hazards and failing to take the most appropriate action in relation to one of these in particular (an unstable wall).
• LB Newham criticised for not sending a representative to the RPT inspection of the property. Attendance was suggested by the RPT as being regarded as good practice.
• Following the above, inspections of dwellings must be thorough with an RPT likely to be unimpressed by LA’s missing obvious issues and by failing to be properly involved in the hearing (Note-authors comment, not RPT)
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00BG/HIN/2007/22
Local authority: LB Tower Hamlets
Hearing date: 23rdApril 2008 (Paper Determination)
Notice served: Improvement Notice (appeal was not against the underlying Notice but for costs as a result of the with-drawl of the Notice following the submission of an appeal against it)
Hazard: Unclear
Order: Dismissed
Points of interest:
• The RPT can only consider an award of costs of up to £500 where a party has acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings. In this case, LB Tower Hamlets action was not considered to fall within this definition.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00BB/HIN/2008/0002
Local authority: LB Islington
Hearing date: 28thApril 2008
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Falling on stairs etc
Order: Notice Varied
Points of interest:
• This case centred on a set of alternating tread (paddle) stairs that met the requirements of the Building Regulations but which were not, exactly, as depicted in the Approved Document. The requirements of the Notice were to replace the stairs that ones that complied with the Regulations, fit a balustrade and improve the local lighting.
• The Notice was varied to exclude the requirement to replace the stairs as the RPT considered that, the existing met relevant Regulations. The other requirements were confirmed.
• Following on from the above, alternating tread (paddle) stairs that comply with Building Regulations requirements will, perhaps, be regarded as being “safe” although other factors that could affect the risk of a fall e.g. lighting, could be taken into account. (Note-author comment, not RPT).
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AH/HED/2008/0001
Local authority: LB Croydon
Hearing date: 5th September 2008
Notice served: Demand for expenses following work carried out in default of an Improvement Notice served under section 11 of the Housing Act 2004
Hazard: Damp & Mould Growth, Electrical Hazards & Structural Collapse & Falling Elements
Order: Demand for expenses confirmed and appeal dismissed
Points of interest:
• Appeal made against demand for recovery of costs incurred in default action following non-compliance with an Improvement Notice on the basis that:
1) the property was the subject of a 20 year guarantee for a damp proof course that had been previously installed,
2) the work couldn’t be carried out with the tenant in situ,
3) there was a discrepancy between a prior informal Improvement Notice and the formal Improvement Notice,
4) the rewiring hadn’t been carried out to a reasonable standard,
5) not all the skirting boards or kitchen floor tiles had been replaced such that some costs should be deducted
6) replacement kitchen base units fitted did not match the existing wall cupboards and
7) the kitchen cooker had been replaced although not a requirement of the specification of work provided.
• In it’s finding, the Tribunal concluded the following:
1. The Improvement Notice had made specific reference to the installation of a new damp proof course: the appellant should have lodged an appeal against the Notice if he had wanted to challenge this.
2. Whether or not it was appropriate to undertake the required work with the tenant in situ was another matter that the appellant should have raised on appeal against the Improvement Notice. In addition, the appellant was entirely responsible for carrying out remedial work under the definition of “the person having control of the dwelling” and could have taken steps to secure possession or secured temporary alternative accommodation for the tenant.
3. The discrepancy between the informal notice and the formal one (which was more extensive in terms of remedial action) was irrelevant as any such informal approach is a voluntary practice and had no statutory force. Reference was again made to the fact that it was a matter to raise in an appeal against the Improvement Notice rather than against the demand for costs.
4. The electrical work had been carried out to a reasonable standard by an approved sub-contractor with the tenant of 9 months never having made any complaint about it following it’s completion. The Tribunal concluded that the fault the appellant was suggesting had occurred could not be attributed to the original workmanship.
5. The appeal based upon not all skirting boards and floor tiles was dismissed following reference to photographs provided by LB Newham that contradicted the allegation.
6. The quality of kitchen base units provided was reasonable and it was clear that efforts had been made to get a match in a situation where it was not unsurprising that an exact match could be obtained. As such, there could be no criticism of the Authority and no deduction from the costs demanded was appropriate.
7. In the issue of the cooker, the Tribunal accepted LB Newham’s evidence that the existing cooker was at or near the end of it’s useful life and that the cost of installing a new one was only marginally more expensive than the re-fitting of the existing one. As such, no deduction from the costs demanded was appropriate.
8. This case clearly confirms that it is not appropriate to raise matters that should have been raised in an appeal against a principal Notice at a later stage when the opportunity to do so has passed.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00BB/HIV/2008/0002
Local authority: LB Newham
Hearing date: 10th September 2008
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Excess Cold
Order:
• Appeal to vary Notice dismissed other than extending time period for completion
• Unless the appellant made representations within 10 days, she had to pay costs
Points of interest:
• Appeal made against decision to refuse to vary the Notice in terms of time period and to permit the installation of storage heaters or other electric heaters as opposed to repairing/renewing an existing gas central heating system that had broken down.
• The Tribunal did not inspect the property as neither party had requested it.
• The appellant did not attend the hearing and only gave notice of such the same day.
• LB Newham applied for £500 costs on the basis that the appeal was an unreasonable one but could not provide information to back up this amount. The Tribunal agreed that costs of £150 could be considered and an order to this effect would be made if no acceptable representations were received from the appellant within 10 days.
• The Tribunal determined that “There is no good reason for her (the appellant) to install some different system….” & dismissed the appeal other than in extending the time period for compliance. Reference was also made to the position where the landlord was in breach of her repairing obligation under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in terms of the existing heating system that had broken down.
• In general terms regarding heating systems, the Tribunal said it could not state that gas central heating has to be provided in a property, that it could only say that adequate heating was needed and that it was up to the landlord to choose the form of heating provided. As regards electric night storage heating, the Tribunal stated “Night storage heaters run off cheap electricity in the night are a perfectly acceptable method of heating residential property”.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00BK/HIN/2008/06
Local authority: LB Westminster
Hearing date: 8th September 2008 & 8th December 2008
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Excess Cold
Order:
• Notice varied to allow the installation of a Kalirel Electric System or conventional night storage heaters in the bed sitting rooms and common parts as an alternative to gas central heating (required by the Notice) subject to the installation of either double or secondary glazing
Points of interest:
• This case concerns the requirement to provide gas central heating to four flats and five bed sitting rooms along with the common parts of the property. The appellant had agreed to install gas central heating in the flats but proposed to install the above heating system in the bed sitting rooms. This appears to be a relatively new off-peak electric powered system with the heating medium being oil rather than bricks. Westminster argued that this system was not appropriate on the basis that gas fired central heating was “more energy efficient”.
• The tribunal considered that the requirements of the “heating standard” i.e. set room temperatures quoted in the Notice could be met by the system proposed and that insistence upon a gas fired system was unreasonable. In particular, it stated, “In the current volatile energy market there could be no guarantee that any price advantage currently enjoyed by a gas fired system would continue indefinitely”.
• Of interest is that with an electric system the tribunal considered that improvement to the window glazing would also be required (no details of window condition given) and seemed happy for heating to be provided in the common parts (stairwell as well as bathrooms). Further details of the Kalirel system can be found at http://www.kalirel.co.uk/
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AG/HIN/2008/0017
Local authority: LB Camden
Hearing date: 13th November 2008 (decision made 27th January 2009)
Notice served: Improvement Notice served under sections 11 and 12 of the Housing Act 2004
Hazard: Excess Cold (Category 1), Damp & Mould Growth (Category 2)
Order:
• Appeal allowed and Notice Varied
• NB: due to an error in the decision published 27th January 2009 (parts of the Improvement Notice so varied were incorrect), the RPT issued a Correction Certificate under Regulation 31(7) of the Residential Property Tribunal Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 on the 3rd February 2009 to clarify the decision.
Points of interest:
• The dwelling concerned was a flat within a Grade II listed property within a Conservation Area.
• LB Camden considered that a Category 1 Excess Cold hazard existed due to a single glazed Georgian wired glass roof over the entire kitchen ceiling had a gap between the glass and frame that permitted draughts, the glass was cracked and crittal metal windows to the landing and two bedrooms were rusted and difficult to open and close, permitting draughts.
• LB Camden considered that a Category 2 Damp & Mould Growth hazard existed due to the walls and ceiling of a WC compartment
having penetrating damp with perished plaster and as the corner of the bathroom was damp with plaster starting to perish.
• The appeal was made by the leaseholder of the flat (Notices had been served by LB Camden on both) on the basis that the hazards were not genuine hazards that placed the occupier at risk of harm, that modern glazing requirements had been imposed on period features and that some of the requirements were the responsibility of the building freeholder rather than the leaseholder.
• The RPT decided that a correct assessment of the hazards had been made. Importantly, it recognised that even though someone may be an expert surveyor, they cannot be an expert on the HHSRS if they have had no training.
• LB Camden were criticised for serving Notices on both the freeholder and leaseholder without looking at the lease details to establish who was responsible (as per their “normal practice”) and assuming that this Edition 2, December 2009 Page 44 of 141 would be sorted out between the two parties themselves. The RPT clearly considered that a LA is under an obligation to make sufficient investigations to identify the correct party to serve a Notice on rather than serve on all possible parties and leave it to them to decide. A “scatter-gun” approach to service of Notices is, therefore, unacceptable.
• The RPT found that 4 of the 6 overall requirements were the responsibility of the freeholder rather than the leaseholder and, therefore, wrongly included in the Notice served upon the leaseholder. The Notice was varied to exclude these works.
• One of the windows of concern was required to be replaced rather than overhauled. The RPT thought the window could be overhauled and stated, “It is possible that replacement is actually more economic (than overhaul) but the choice between that and an overhaul may be left to the Appellant”. As such, the Notice was varied to this effect. This suggests that the minimum requirement should be imposed even if a better solution might be cheaper with the choice of “going further than strictly needed” or not resting with the recipient.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00BJ/HIN/2008/0023
Local authority: LB Wandsworth
Hearing date: 19th February 2009
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Excess Cold and Damp & Mould Growth (Category 1) plus 5, Category 2, hazards
Order: Appeal dismissed
Points of interest:
• The appellant in this case appealed on three main grounds, as set out below.
1. Following his claim for possession, the tenant had made a counterclaim for breach of covenant to repair and that no other action (the Improvement Notice) could be taken for what was essentially the same matter. It was contended that the tenant had to choose which of these actions she wished to pursue but couldn’t do both. The Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal on the basis that both the counterclaim and the service of an Improvement Notice were separate and legitimate actions that do not “subvert or otherwise “leap-frog” each other”.
2. That none of the items listed in the Improvement Notice constituted a hazard. The Tribunal found this had no merit.
3. That the service of an Improvement Notice was unlawful as it violated the appellant’s property rights. The Tribunal decision examines this issue in some detail and concludes that it found itself satisfied that the Housing Act 2004 and the HHSRS represent a “measured, proportionate response to the problem of sub-standard conditions in the private rented sector” and had been used by LB Wandsworth in a proportionate manner in this case.
• The Tribunal made a comment that it was surprised that the local authority “did not score the overcrowding, let alone identify it as a hazard, despite its being an obvious problem”.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00BK/HIN/2008/0025
Local authority: City of Westminster
Hearing date: 26th February 2009
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Fire (Category 1) plus 3, Category 2, hazards
Order: Improvement Notice varied in so far as the time period for compliance was extended
Points of interest:
• This case involves a 5 storey Victorian property comprising of a vacant ground floor commercial premises, nine “studio-units” and two, 1-bed, flats.
• The main ground of appeal was not that the hazards weren’t present but that an extension of the time-frame for compliance was sought and, in addition, that a planning application had been submitted for the whole-scale redevelopment of the site which, if implemented, would remove the works required by the Improvement Notice.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00BG/HIN/2008/0018
Local authority: LB Camden
Hearing date: 5th March 2009
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Damp & Mould Growth
Order: Improvement Notice Suspended for a period of 28 days from the 5th March 2009
Points of interest:
• LB Camden had served the Notice based upon problems with extractor fans, heating system and windows. Prior to the hearing the issues relating to the heating boiler and the windows had been satisfactorily resolved.
• The basis of the appeal appeared to be that the appellant considered that the local authority had not taken into account the behaviour of the tenants in coming to their decision although, seemingly, not disagreeing that work should be carried out.
• The Improvement Notice was suspended to allow both parties to agree the exact ventilation work required and for this to be carried out, stating that they felt that the requirement of the Notice was somewhat unclear.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00BH/HIN/2008/0022
Local authority: LB Waltham Forest
Hearing date: 2nd April 2009
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Falling on Stairs
Order: Appeal dismissed save in so far as the compliance period for certain requirements was extended
Points of interest:
• This case had previously come to the RPT in 2008 when a successful appeal had been made against the making of a Prohibition Order on the basis of the same hazard and the Tribunal had directed the local authority to consider serving an Improvement Notice (please see LON/00BH/HPO/2008/0001 for further information).
• An Improvement Notice had duly been served and this hearing was in relation to that Notice with the appellant contending that LB Waltham Forest had taken no reasonable steps to ensure that landlords of regulated tenants could meet the demands of the HHSRS, including financial assistance to allow them to carry out what should be regarded as “adaptations” for an older person.
• All parties agreed that work was needed and the Tribunal had some sympathy for the position of a landlord of a regulated tenancy in the current economic climate.
• The Tribunal determined that some work to prevent the most serious harm (the raising of a barrier and the provision of improved lighting) should be carried out as soon as possible and within 28 days but that the re-construction of the stairs could be carried out over a longer period of time (6 months).
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AT/HIN/2008/0001
Local authority: LB Enfield
Hearing date: 30th April 2009
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Various
Order: As the Notice was withdrawn, the local authority was ordered to refund the appeal application fee
Points of interest:
• The dwelling was squatted and the squatters had carried out a significant amount of work to the extent that LB Enfield agreed to withdraw the Improvement Notice.
• LB Enfield was ordered to refund the appeal application fee.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AG/HIN/2009/0004
Local authority: LB Camden
Hearing date: 9th July 2009
Notice served: Improvement Notice
Hazard: Excess Cold, Entry by Intruders, Falls associated with stairs & steps, Falls between levels, Fire, Position & Operability of amenities (Category 1), Damp & Mould Growth, Collision & Entrapment, Electrical Hazards and Food Safety (Category 2)
Order: Improvement Notice varied in terms of works and time periods Points of interest:
• Regarding the appellant’s proposals to re-configure the nature of the property (the existing being a leasehold flat and studio flats), the panel stated that it was “… absurd if the Environmental Health Officer was forced to adopt an unsatisfactory solution to avoid treading on the planners toes” and also that “It is the Tribunal’s view that Parliament could not have intended that the reasonable requirements of an Environmental Health Officer in serving an improvement notice should be over-turned by a separate department of the Authority”.
• Raised “platform” beds were in-situ with ladders as a means of access to them. It appears that the panel accepted these as a part of the property and, thus, could be taken into account in an HHSRS assessment.
• Despite having been requested by the appellant to provide details of the HHSRS scores (including under a Freedom of Information Act request), LB Camden had not done so. The panel commented that it “cannot see any justification for the Respondent withholding information that would become public if the matter progressed to a Tribunal, and it may have been that some of the items which were disputed by the Applicant could have been resolved before the hearing”.
Prohibition Order case summaries
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AL/HPO/2006/0001
Local authority: LB Greenwich
Hearing date: 30th October 2006
Notice served: Prohibition Order
Hazard: Damp & Mould Growth, Excess Cold, Lighting (all category 1)
Order: Prohibition Order confirmed
Points of interest:
• The assessment of the hazards themselves was not in dispute.
• The appellant’s argument was that an Improvement Notice was the most appropriate action although submitted at the appeal that the Order should have been suspended.
• Although the application was made out of time, the RPT allowed it using its discretion.
• The appellant failed to produce his “bundle” in time and did not serve a copy of his expert evidence on the respondent at least 7 days before the hearing date. This was also unsigned and undated. LB Greenwich made applications to the RPT to dismiss the appeal, as the bundle had not been produced in time, to hear the appeal excluding the appellant’s bundle or to exclude the expert evidence. Whilst allowing the appeal to continue and allowing the bundle to be included, the RPT did exclude the appellant’s expert evidence on the basis that there were serious breaches of Regulation 22 that would have been seriously detrimental to LB Greenwich.
• Reasonable cost is only one element of the local authority’s considerations in determining the most appropriate action.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AT/HPO/2007/0002
Local authority: LB Hounslow
Hearing date: 7th November 2007
Notice served: Prohibition Order
Hazard: Includes Fire (Category 1) and Crowding & Space (Category 2)
Order: Appeal Upheld, Order Quashed
Points of interest:
• The Prohibition Order did not contain any detail of the remedial action that would be required to enable the Order to be lifted. The RPT determined that this was a statutory requirement and, as such, quashed the Order.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00AU/HPO/2007/0003
Local authority: LB Islington
Hearing date: 6th December 2007
Notice served: Prohibition Order
Hazard: Damp & Mould Growth, Excess Heat, Lighting, Electrical Hazards, and Nitrogen Dioxide
Order: Prohibition Order confirmed
Points of interest:
• Prohibition Order made in relation to a windowless bed-sitting room (borrowed light from a three-sided light-well only).
• The assessments of the hazards themselves were not in dispute.
• Accepted by both parties that most of the deficiencies could be adequately dealt with through carrying out work with the exception of the lighting.
• The appellant’s argument was that an Improvement Notice was the most appropriate action.
• The RPT determined that the dwelling was not habitable as there were no means to remedy the lighting deficiency such that, without electric lights, it was dark and depressing and without any form of view.
Rent assessment panel: LONDON
Case number: LON/00BH/HPO/2008/0001
Local authority: LB Waltham Forest
Hearing date: 22nd April 2008
Notice served: Prohibition Order
Hazard: Falling on stairs etc
Order: Appeal Upheld, Order Quashed
Points of interest:
• Appeal made by the occupier, a lady in her 60’s who had lived in the dwelling for some 30 years.
• The dwelling comprised a first and second floor maisonette with the second floor being a large attic room being used as a bedroom that was accessed from the first floor by a very steep set of stairs.
• The Order essentially prohibited the use of the stairs from first floor to the attic for any purpose with the remedial action required so as to lift the Order being to replace the stairs with ones that comply with Building Regulations approved document K and, in addition, specified a pitch of no greater than 42 degrees with dimensions given for widths and heights of tread and riser.
• The statement of reasons indicated an Improvement Notice was not appropriate as it was not possible to carry out work at reasonable cost.
• The RPT considered the statement of reasons as being inadequately brief.
• The appeal was made on the basis that an Improvement Notice or a HAN would have been more appropriate courses of action, including that the occupier had been in residence and had never suffered a fall leading to harm.
• RPT confirmed that a landlord’s assertion that he or she had inadequate funds to remedy a hazard(s) was not a defence against the appropriateness of an Improvement Notice, as this would negate the intention of the Housing Act 2004.
• RPT advised that the “vulnerability” of the occupier rather than the generality of the vulnerable group had to be a key part of the LA’s decision-making.
• As to “reasonable cost”, the RPT advised that there is no definition in guidance but that costings should be thorough: in this case there was some criticism as to how LB Waltham Forest had approached this (use of some sort of “arbitrary multiplier”). In particular, they had dismissed the possibility of the installation of an alternating tread staircase that would have complied with the Building Regulations although the RPT couldn’t determine whether this would satisfactorily mitigate the category 1 hazard or not.
• Determining the most appropriate action (particularly with making a Prohibition Order) should include an assessment of the likely depreciation of the capital and rental value of a dwelling.
• In determining the Prohibition Order as the most appropriate action, LB Waltham Forest had been naïve to assume that the occupier would comply with it when there was no effective means of policing the Order.
Web Designer