Midland RPT Panel Decision Summaries

(use CTRL+F to search on the page)

Rent Assessment Panel: MIDLAND

Case Number: BIR/44UD/HIN/2006/0003

Local Authority: Rugby Borough Council

Hearing Date: 6th February 2007

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazards: Lighting, Falling on Level Surfaces, Structural Collapse & Falling Elements

Order: The appeal against the Improvement Notice was accepted as the Notice was quashed as it failed to comply with the

requirements of Section 8 of the 2004 Act.

Points of Interest:

• All three hazards were rated as Category 1 hazards and an Improvement Notice was served, this Notice was later withdrawn as the applicant rectified the problems relating to the falling on level surfaces hazard. A new Improvement Notice was then served with regard to outstanding works for the other two hazards. In addition to the Improvement Notice being rejected due to the lack of Section 8 Statement of Reasons there were other defects found. The Notice did not say whether it was served under Section 11 or 12 and there was a mistake in the initial date and operative date of the Notice. The tribunal also found mistakes in the HHSRS assessment and determined that both hazards should in fact be rated as Category 2 rather then Category 1 hazards.

Rent Assessment Panel: MIDLAND

Case Number: BIR/41UH/HIN/2007/0001

Local Authority: Staffordshire Moorland District Council

Hearing Date: 17th May 2007 (neither party requested a hearing and the appeal was dealt with based on written representations of the parties)

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazards: Eight Category 1 Hazards and Five Category 2 Hazards

Order: The Improvement Notice was confirmed

Points of Interest:

• The reasons for appeal were that the applicant could not gain access to the property and the tenant caused the damage to the property. The applicant wanted the Notice withdrawn until he could gain possession of the property. The tribunal visited and found works were still required with relation to all 13 hazards so no need to vary the Notice. Due to the long-term failure of the applicant to carry out works, Notice was confirmed.

Rent Assessment Panel: MIDLAND

Case Number: BIR/00GF/HIN/2007/0003

Local Authority: The Borough of Telford and Wrekin

Hearing Date: 6th September 2007 (neither party requested a hearing and the appeal was dealt with based on written representations of the parties)

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazards: Entry by Intruders

Order: The Improvement Notice was confirmed subject to some variation to the nature of remedial action required.

Points of Interest:

• The applicant appealed as they did not believe there to be a Category 1 hazard, thought it impractical to erect a fence and thought security measures should be undertaken outside the boundary of their land. The RPT considered the level of fear felt by the tenant as members of the public were using the property garden as a short cut from the rear public footpath. Notice confirmed and required works slightly changed; applicant required to erect a fence or wall to the rear boundary of the property to a height not less then 1.8m. Works to be complete within 28 days.

Rent Assessment Panel: MIDLAND

Case Number: BIR/44UD/HIN/2007/002

Local Authority: Rugby Borough Council

Hearing Date: 30th January 2008 (neither party requested a hearing and the appeal was dealt with based on written representations of the parties)

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazards: Domestic Hygiene etc

Order: The Improvement Notice was quashed.

Points of Interest:

• The Notice was served as it was considered a Category 1 hazard existed as food waste was being discarded outside the side entrance of the premises allowing easy access for pests. The applicant appealed for a number of reasons including that the risk of pests had been overrated. During the period of appeal, the respondents revisited the property and found that works had been carried out. They then wrote to the applicant to state the Improvement Notice had been complied with. On the basis that the Notice had been revoked the appeal was dismissed. However, as the Notice was not revoked following correct procedure the Tribunal decided to quash the Notice.

Rent Assessment Panel: MIDLAND

Case Number: BIR/00CN/HIN/2008/0001

Local Authority: Birmingham City Council

Hearing Date: 11th June 2008

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazards: Damp & Mould Growth, Food Safety, Falling on Stairs, Flames & Hot Surfaces

Order: The Improvement Notice was confirmed with variation of start and completion dates.

Points of Interest:

• The applicant requested that a closing order be placed on the property as would have preferred to carry out works over a number of years. The applicant thought the cost of remedial works was too high to complete in the time period given. RPT decided the respondent had taken the correct action, as all hazards were rated as Category 2 it would be deemed unjustified serving a closing order on property. Works stipulated in Notice must therefore be carried out. RPT confirmed that applicant must pay the charge given by the Council for expenses.

Rent Assessment Panel: MIDLAND

Case Number: BIR/41UE/HIN/2008/0006

Local Authority: Newcastle-Under-Lyme Borough Council

Hearing Date: 21st July 2008

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazards: Excess Cold, Falling between Levels, Noise, Entry by Intruders

Order: The Improvement Notice was confirmed with variation of requested works and the deletion of works relating to falls between levels.

Points of Interest:

• The Tribunal found that the works asked for were unreasonable, although they agreed the service of an Improvement Notice was appropriate. The Tribunal set out appropriate alterations to the requested works and removed the section relating falls between levels.

Rent Assessment Panel: MIDLAND

Case Number: BIR/00GA/HIN/2008/0004 and 0005

Local Authority: Herefordshire Council

Hearing Date: 26th August 2008 (neither party requested a hearing and the appeal was dealt with based on written representations of the parties)

Notice Served: 2x Improvement Notice

Hazards: First Notice: Electrical Hazards & Fire - Second Notice: Excess Cold

Order: The Improvement Notice was confirmed with variation of start and completion dates and the deletion of one of the named parties responsible for works.

Points of Interest:

• The Tribunal were satisfied with the HHSRS rating, service of the Notice and the requested works. The Tribunal considered reasonable timescales to complete the works and varied the Notice accordingly. The Tribunal was satisfied that one of the named parties on the Notice should be removed as they were the Solicitors for the Trustees and had no responsibility over the completion of the works.

Rent assessment panel: MIDLAND

Case number: BIR/31UJ/HIN/2009/0001

Local authority: OADBY & WIGSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

Hearing date: 19TH MAY 2009

Notice served: IMPROVEMENT NOTICES

Hazard: DAMP & MOULD; EXCESS COLD

Order: The Improvement Notice in respect of a Category 1 Hazard for Excess Cold was confirmed, subject to variation as to the date for completion of the works. The Improvement Notice in respect of a Category 2 Hazard for Damp & Mould was quashed

Points of interest:

• This was a paper determination.

• The Tribunal said that the provision of suitable heating, in accordance with the Notice regarding Excess Cold, would mean that provision of a mechanical extract fan in the bathroom, as specified in the Notice regarding Damp & Mould, was not necessary as long as the tenant ventilated the property adequately.

Rent assessment panel: MIDLAND

Case number: BIR/44UC/HIN/2009/0002

Local authority: NUNEATON & BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Hearing date: 19TH JUNE 2009

Notice served: IMPROVEMENT NOTICE

Hazard: DAMP & MOULD; EXCESS COLD; FALLING ON STAIRS ETC

Order: The appeal was allowed in part with the Improvement Notice to be varied.

Points of interest:

• The Tribunal said that the Local Authority was correct to serve an Improvement Notice.

• The timescale for completion of the works was put back by five months.

• It was possible that heating works might be carried out via the Government’s Warm Front scheme, but if this could not be done by a given date, the applicant was to install a heating system instead.

• The Notice was varied to specify that the heating system must be capable of maintaining a temperature of 19 degrees C in all rooms when the outside temperature was -1 degrees C. It originally specified a range of temperatures for different rooms between 18 & 22 degrees C.

• The Notice was varied so as not to require works in respect of a small hole in the tread of an external metal staircase, but works were still required to illuminate the staircase satisfactorily.

Rent assessment panel: MIDLAND

Case number: BIR/17UH/HIN/2009/0007

Local authority: HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL

Determination date: 18TH AUGUST 2009

Notice served: IMPROVEMENT NOTICE

Hazard: ELECTRICAL HAZARDS

Order: The Improvement Notice was quashed. No order was made for costs.

Points of interest:

• This was a paper determination.

• The Local Authority did not provide Hazard Score information for assessment as a Category 1 Hazard and its action was based on a report from a British Gas electrician, a copy of which the landlord was unable to sight until he received a copy of the respondent’s bundle.

• The Improvement Notice asked for the landlord to arrange inspection and testing of the electrical installation by a competent electrician and for an inspection report to be obtained and acted upon.

• The Tribunal’s reassessment was as a Band E Category 2 Hazard (one member of the Tribunal was a member of the C.I.E.H.)

Prohibition Order case summaries

Rent Assessment Panel: MIDLAND

Case Number: BIR/17UB/HPO/2006/0002

Local Authority: Amber Valley Borough Council

Hearing Date: 16th January 2007 (determined after inspection, no hearing)

Notice Served: Prohibition Order

Hazards: Damp and Mould Growth, Excess Cold, Food Safety, Personal Hygiene, Sanitation and Drainage, Electrical Hazards, Fire, Structural Collapse

Order: Order confirmed

Points of Interest:

• Prohibition Order to prohibit use of the property as a dwelling in its entirety.