Northern RPT Panel Decision Summaries

(use CTRL+F to search on the page)

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/00CJ/HIN/2006/0003

Local Authority: Newcastle City Council

Hearing Date: 13 August 2006

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Category 1 and Cat 2 hazards

Order: The notice was quashed

Points of Interest:

• The owners appealed out of time, but the RPT accepted the appeal.

• The owners wrote a statement to the effect that the work had been substantially carried out. The RPT inspected the property and found this to be the case and that none of the hazards presented a significant risk

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/20UE/HIN/2006/0002

Local Authority: City of Durham Council

Hearing Date: 11th January 2007

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Category 1 Hazard

Order: All the work was carried out and the notice revoked. The applicant applied for costs of £2,525.

Points of Interest:

• A tribunal may determine that a party to proceedings should pay the costs incurred by another party where: 1) he has failed to comply with an order of the tribunal and 2) he has in the opinion of the tribunal acted frivolously, vexatiously, busively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings.

• The amount that a party may be ordered to pay must not exceed £500.

• The tribunal concluded that the claim did not fall within one of those categories.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/00BN/2006/0009

Local Authority: Manchester City Council

Hearing Date: 12 March 2007

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Category 1 hazard: Excess cold

Order: The appeal was rejected.

Points of Interest:

• The appeal concerned the issue that plasterboard cannot be attached to the existing rotten joists, and that the plasterboard would create ventilation problems. The owner maintained that a omplete renovation was required and that in order to do this the tenant would have to leave the flat.

• The RPT found the works to be entirely reasonable and it to be irrelevant that the owner wished to seek repossession of the flat and to refurbish the whole building. The appeal was rejected.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/30UD/HIN/2007/0019

Local Authority: Burnley Borough Council

Hearing Date: 30 Oct 2007

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Excess Cold Category 2 hazard

Order: The notice required the reconnection of a radiator in a kitchen. Appeal was lodged on the basis that the work had been

carried out The appeal was allowed and the notice quashed

Points of Interest:

• It is the duty of the RPT to consider the position in the light of the facts at the time of the determination. At this time the work had been carried out.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/32G/HIN/2007/0017

Local Authority: South Kesteven District Council

Hearing Date: 13th December 2007

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Category 1 Excess Cold

Order: The Improvement Notice was quashed

Points of Interest:

• This case involved a “life tenant”, namely a couple who were entitled to occupy the dwelling until they decided to vacate or the last survivor died. The appellant was the property owner (the daughter of the occupiers) and appealed on the basis that she wasn’t a “landlord” using a dictionary definition and had never received any rent from the occupiers. The lifetime tenancy agreement indicated that rent was to be as “agreed between the parties” with the non-payment of rent not being prejudicial to the continued occupancy.

• The Tribunal determined that the appellant could not be regarded as the “persons having control” under section 63 of the Housing Act 2004 as no “rack-rent” was possible under the occupation agreement.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/00CB/HIN/2008/0008

Local Authority: Wirral Borough Council

Hearing Date: 29th May 2008

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Category 1 and 2

Order: The appeal was dismissed

Points of Interest:

• An improvement notice for category 1 and 2 hazards was served on an HMO.

• The owner appealed on the grounds that possession proceedings were underway to evict the tenants and asked that the tribunal should suspend the notice until the outcome of those proceedings were known. The owner intended to occupy the property as their only or main residence.

• No work had been carried out to comply with the notice

• The tribunal is not entitled to take into account what may or may not happen in the future, but must take the circumstances of the case as it finds them at the hearing.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/30UH/2008/0001

Local Authority: Lancaster City Council

Hearing Date: 10 July 2008

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Various

Order: The appeal was rejected

Points of Interest:

• Category 2 hazards existed at a tenanted property. The LA had requested that remedial works be carried out, but this had not happened. The property then became vacant.

• The improvement notice was then served on the empty property, and suspended until such time as the property was re-occupied. A demand for payment of £300.00 accompanied the notice, but was only to be paid if the notice became operative. (i.e. if the property became reoccupied without the work having been carried out)

• The owner appealed the notice on the grounds that its service was harassment.

• The appeal was rejected. The RPA felt that this was a proportionate and reasonable way of dealing with the issue.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/00CJ/HIN/2008/0006

Local Authority: City of Newcastle upon Tyne

Hearing Date: 23rd September 2008

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Category 1 Fire Hazard

Order: The appeal was dismissed and the notice confirmed.

Points of Interest:

• Notice was served requiring the owner to create a corridor on the first floor so that there was safe access to the top floor bedrooms without passing through the first floor lounge.

• The appeal was on the grounds that the corridor would unacceptably reduce the size of the lounge.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/00CM/HIN/2008/0010

Local Authority: Sunderland City Council

Hearing Date: 1st October 2008

Notice Served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Category 1 and Cat 2 Hazards

Order: The Tribunal found that the notice had been properly served, but varied it to remove items where the work had been

carried out

Points of Interest:

• The owner appealed the notices, but gave no reason why and did not appear at the tribunal or give any evidence. He had carried out most of the work

Rent assessment panel: NORTHERN

Case number: MAN/30UK/HIN/2008/0012

Local authority: Preston City Council

Hearing date: 7th November 2008

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Various including two Category 1 hazards (Fire and Excess Cold)

Order: The local authority had to pay the appellants appeal application fee of £150

Points of interest:

• This case relates to a property that the local authority considered to be an HMO with hazards and had served an Improvement Notice in July 2008 but later revoked in October 2008 due to errors in giving notice of inspection under section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. An appeal had been made against the Improvement Notice and the appellant requested that the matter still be heard to look at the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the original notice and that of costs due to the way in which it was alleged that the local authority had acted.

• The Tribunal took the view that it did not have to hear the issues around an Improvement Notice that had been revoked and restricted itself to looking at the behaviour of the local authority after the appeal application had been made. The Tribunal considered that it there was any criticism of Preston City Council it was the time taken for them to revoke the Improvement Notice but did not consider that it had acted in a frivolous, vexatious, abusive or disruptive manner and simply ordered that the appellant could recover her appeal application fee from the authority.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/00CG/HIN/2008/0013

Local Authority: Sheffield City Council

Hearing Date: 21 November 2008

Notice Served: Improvement notice

Hazard: 3 Category 1 Hazards

Order: The tribunal varied the notice to allow removal of all works completed and set a date for the completion of all the remaining works

Points of Interest:

• Appeal on the basis that the necessary work was delayed because of the health problems of the tenant and that a notice was not necessary. The owner appealed against the administration charge of £400.

• The owner carried out most of the work.

• The tribunal found that the notice was properly served in that the hazards existed.

• The admin charge stood since to remove it would allow owners to complete works and merely appeal on the basis that the charge should be removed because the works are complete. The charge was reasonable, partly because the Council was required by law to serve the notice.

Rent assessment panel: NORTHERN

Case number: MAN/32UC/HIN/2008/0022

Local authority: East Lindsey District Council

Hearing date: 10th December 2008

Notice served: Improvement Notices

Hazard: Various Category 1 and 2, including Fire and Excess Cold

Order: Appeal dismissed in part with some variation to some of the Notices being made

Points of interest:

• This case involved two blocks of former holiday flats that had undergone some work and were subsequently used to provide permanent residential accommodation in the form of a total of 19 selfcontained flats. Improvement Notices had been served in relation to individual flats as well as common parts. One of the grounds of appeal was that the accommodation did not comprise an HMO under the Housing Act 2004 but, on this point, the appeal was dismissed with the Tribunal finding that it was an HMO under the converted building test to which section 257 applies.

• In relation to the Excess Cold hazard, the Tribunal found that night storage heaters have insufficient flexibility to provide necessary heat on demand and, in the particular case, considered that gas central heating (as recommended by the local authority) was the most effective heating system.

• The issue of costs for taking enforcement action was considered and whilst the Tribunal felt that the costs sought by the local authority were excessive generally, they did advise that they felt an hourly rate of £25 was reasonable.

• In terms of varying some of the Notices served, the variations were not particularly extensive or significant within their original context.

Rent assessment panel: NORTHERN

Case number: MAN/00BR/HIN/2008/0001

Local authority: Salford City Council

Hearing date: 2nd February 2009

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Falling on Stairs (Category 1), Falling between Levels, Crowding & Space, Collision & Entrapment and Excess Cold (Category 2)

Order: The Notice was confirmed but varied in so far as it related solely to the Falling on Stairs and Falling between Levels hazards with compliance time periods also being extended

Points of interest:

• By the time the hearing took place, the only deficiencies to be considered related to missing guarding and a handrail to stairs and low window sill heights.

• The appellant did not attend the hearing as he had notified the Tribunal on the same day that he had been involved in a road accident. The local authority made an application for the matter to proceed which as accepted by the Tribunal.

Rent assessment panel: NORTHERN

Case number: MAN/00CB/HIN/2008/0023

Local authority: Wirral Borough Council

Hearing date: 4th February 2009

Notice served: Improvement Notices

Hazard: Fire, Excess Cold, Damp & Mould Growth, Falling on Stairs and Personal Hygiene, Sanitation & Drainage

Order: The Notices were quashed save in respect to three, Category 2, hazards as was the local authority’s demand for £882 costs for taking enforcement action

Points of interest:

• This case involves a property comprising of eight self-contained flats and common parts. Improvement Notices had been served in relation to both flats and common parts but on the premise that the property was an HMO.

• One of the grounds of appeal was that the property was not an HMO under the converted buildings test to which section 257 of the Housing Act 2004 applies. The appellant produced evidence of both planning permission and Building Regulations consent dated 1989 for the current use and, as such, the Tribunal found that the property was not an HMO. On this basis, the requirements to remedy the Fire hazard were quashed as the Notice had been served on the premise that the property was an HMO and it wasn’t. However, the Tribunal considered that the hazard remains and suggested the way forward was for this to be resolved through agreement or the service of a further (correct) Improvement Notice.

• The Tribunal considered that the Notices served were largely deficient and, as such, quashed the local authority’s demand for costs.

Rent assessment panel: NORTHERN

Case number: MAN/00FA/HIN/2008/0025

Local authority: Hull City Council

Hearing date: 12th February 2009

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Fire (Category 1)

Order: Appeal Dismissed

Points of interest:

• This case involves a 2-storey end terraced property split into 5 flats. There was a fire detection and alarm system present but the significant issues considered by the local authority were the presence of timber cladding to the ground floor ceilings and within the internal fire escape route.

• An Improvement Notice was served in relation to the first floor rear flat requiring that all linings to the common escape route should be Class 1 surface spread of flame rating and that it should be ensured that the ground floor ceilings were 30 minute fire resisting.

• One of the appeal matters was the contention the local authority had not taken full account of the “good” aspects of the property such as the fire detection and alarm system and that the finding of a category 1 hazard was a decision that no reasonable officer could have made.

• The Tribunal could find no reason to depart from the local authority officer’s professional judgement and dismissed the appeal.

Rent assessment panel: NORTHERN

Case number: MAN/00UK/HIR/2008/0002

Local authority: Preston City Council

Hearing date: 23rd February 2009

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Excess Cold, Food Safety

Order: Improvement Notice varied

Points of interest:

• This case involves an appeal against the refusal of the local authority to vary an Improvement Notice served in October 2007. No appeal had been made against the original Notice but the Tribunal noted that it had not complied with section 13 of the Housing Act 2004 in that for each of the respective hazards it did not specify whether it was served under section 11 or 12.

• During the Tribunal’s inspection of the property, the authority’s housing enforcement officers were refused access. It is assumed that this was by appellant and/or her representative in attendance.

• The local authority contended that whilst the appeal was on the basis of it’s refusal to vary the Notice, it was effectively an application to suspend it and that the Tribunal had no power to consider the matter as suspension was not a atter listed in paragraph 13 of the First Schedule to the Act. The Tribunal did not accept this argument and declined to grant the authority’s application on this point.

• The property was in a conservation area and had gas central heating and single glazed windows. The authority had required the provision of double-glazing under the Excess Cold hazard. The Tribunal found no evidence of excessive cold conditions and varied the Improvement Notice to exclude the requirements for this hazard. In addition, they found that work to remedy a Food Safety hazard had been completed and, accordingly, varied the Notice so as to exclude the requirement to carry out remedial work.

Rent assessment panel: NORTHERN

Case number: MAN/00BT/HIN/2009/004

Local authority: Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

Hearing date: 15th July 2009

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Excess Cold and Structural Collapse & Falling Elements Order: Improvement Notice quashed save as in respect of the Structural Collapse & Falling Elements hazard

Points of interest:

• The requirement for the replacement of the front door to reduce drafts was quashed. Draft excluders were fitted.

Prohibition Order case summaries

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/32UB/HPO/2006/0004

Local Authority: Boston Borough Council

Hearing Date: 6th March 2007

Notice Served: Prohibition Order

Hazard: Category 1 Falling on Stairs

Order: The Prohibition Order was quashed

Points of Interest:

• This case involved a premises comprising of a self-contained ground floor bar/restaurant and a maisonette above on the first and second floors having an external metal access staircase. This was not enclosed and such enclosure was one of the remedial works specified by Boston Borough Council.

• The essential part of the appeal was that the making of a Prohibition Order was not the most appropriate course of action to take.

• Prior to the hearing, external lighting had been fitted to the staircase.

• The Tribunal found that the service of an Improvement Notice was deemed to be the most appropriate course of action in their view and quashed the Order.

• Of interest is the following comment made by the Tribunal: “We are not of the view that compliance with the Building Regulations will necessarily be sufficient to reduce the hazard to below Category 1 nor that enclosure of the staircase is necessary and the council will have to form their own opinion as to what works are now appropriate.”

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/00EY/HPO/2007/0001

Local Authority: Blackpool Borough Council

Hearing Date: 4th June 2007

Notice Served: Prohibition Order

Hazard: Category 1 & 2 Hazards

Order: The Prohibition Order was upheld although varied to exclude ground floor self-contained shop

Points of Interest:

• This case involved a premises comprising of a self-contained ground floor shop, a ground floor flat and non self-contained units of residential accommodation on the first and second floors that were in a dilapidated condition and had an inadequate means of escape from fire.

• The appeal was essentially on the basis that the conditions within the premises, although needed refurbishment, did not amount to Category 1 hazards.

• The Order was varied in relation to the ground floor shop as fireproofing work had been carried out there-in such that the Tribunal did not consider it’s occupation posed a hazard to the remainder of the premises.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/00CF/HP0/2008/0004

Local Authority: Rotherham Borough Council

Hearing Date: 30th June 2008

Notice Served: Prohibition Order

Hazard: Category 1 Fire

Order: The Prohibition Order was quashed with the Tribunal directing that the most appropriate action was for an Improvement Notice to be served

Points of Interest:

• This case involved a 2-storey property occupied as a 6 bed roomed “shared house” type HMO.

• Subsequent to the making of the Order, some work had been completed but not all.

• The appeal was essentially on the basis of whether a Category 1 hazard was present and whether or not the making of a Prohibition Order was the most appropriate action for the local authority to take. The appellant did not dispute that work was required at the property.

Emergency Action case summaries

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/00FB/HED/2006/0001

Local Authority: East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Hearing Date: 9th February 2006

Notice Served: Emergency Remedial Action (Demand for Costs)

Hazard: Category 1 Electrical Hazard

Order: The appeal was allowed in part with the Tribunal reducing the demand for costs from £8,723 to £6,962

Points of Interest:

• At the hearing, the appellant attempted to appeal against the action taken even though out of time as well as to the demand for costs. The Tribunal found that there was no good reason for an appeal against the Emergency Remedial Action not to have been made within the specified time period and solely considered the issue of the costs of the action taken.

• A part of the Local Authority’s demand for costs was for providing temporary accommodation for two residents whilst work was being carried out. As these residents were re-housed prior to the start date of remedial action given in the statutory section 41 Notice, the Tribunal determined that these costs could not be included and the demand was reduced accordingly.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/30UJ/HER/2007/0001

Local Authority: Pendle Borough Council

Hearing Date: 23rd March 2007

Notice Served: Emergency Remedial Action

Hazard: Category 1 Carbon Monoxide, Un-combusted Fuel Gas and Explosions (Group 1) and Excess Cold, Personal Hygiene, Sanitation & Drainage and Food Safety (Group 2)

Order: The appeal was dismissed

Points of Interest:

• Following the identification of a gas and CO leak at the dwelling, the local authority took Emergency Remedial Action to disconnect the gas supply at the meter position.

• Having done so, further hazards (those described as group 2) were identified and further Emergency Remedial Action was taken to deal with these by the replacement of a defective length of gas supply pipe.

• The appeal was made on the basis that there had not been a category 1 hazard present and that the second group of hazards only existed as a result of the first action taken by the local authority.

• The Tribunal determined that the local authority had acted appropriately in relation to both groups of hazards, its actions were not unreasonable and that it had not abused its powers.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/00CJ/HPV/2007/001

Local Authority: Newcastle City Council

Hearing Date: 22nd November 2007

Notice Served: Emergency Prohibition Order

Hazard: Category 1 Fire

Order: The Emergency Prohibition Order was varied as to only apply to those bed-sitting rooms that did not have a fire detection system

Points of Interest:

• This case involved a 3 storey premises comprising of bed-sitting rooms in, overall, poor condition. The action required by Newcastle City Council for the Order to be lifted was the installation of a fire detection and alarm system and fire doors to all habitable rooms and kitchen.

• Some work to install fire detection and fire doors was in progress at the time of the hearing and with some of the rooms being unoccupied.

Rent assessment Panel: NORTHERN

Case Number: MAN/00BL/HER/2008/0001

Local Authority: The Borough Council of Bolton

Hearing Date: 10th March 2009

Notice Served: Emergency Remedial Action

Hazard: Category 1 Electrical Hazard, Food Safety and Excess Cold

Order: The appeal was allowed in part with the Tribunal varying the section 41 Notice by deleting the action taken in respect to the Food Safety and Excess Cold hazards

Points of Interest:

• This case involves a mid-terraced, 1970’s, property occupied by a pregnant woman and her six children, aged 2,5,10,11,15 and 17 years old. They had been without central heating or hot water for several months due to a defective boiler prior to an inspection being carried out in November 2008. The occupiers had electric halogen heaters as their sole means of heating the property. In addition, there was exposed wiring from a light switch and where a central heating thermostat had been located.

• The local authority officer had contacted the owner by telephone when he advised he was out of the country but would deal with the boiler on his return in two days time. There was some disagreement between the appellant and the local authority as to the full content of this conversation but this point was not disputed at the hearing.

• Emergency remedial action was carried out with the action taken being the replacement of the boiler, the renewing of the light switch and the patch plastering over the exposed wiring.

• The appeal was made on the ground that inadequate notice of the action had been given, particularly when the owner had advised that he would be attending to the boiler within a few days. The local authority defended their action on the basis that 1) the occupier was pregnant and spent most of her day at home with her youngest child, 2) she was reliant on portable heaters for any warmth when the forecast for the following five days was for low temperatures, 3) there was a significant amount of soiled dishes and cutlery in the kitchen and 4) the exposed wiring was dangerous.

• The Tribunal accepted that there was a Category 1 Electrical Hazard that posed an imminent risk of serious harm and that Emergency Remedial Action was the most appropriate action for this hazard. However, they were not satisfied that the same could be said for the other two hazards and taking into account that the occupiers had been without heating or hot water for some months already, commented that whilst conditions were clearly unsatisfactory it wasn’t “reasonable to conclude that the risks posed by the living conditions were about to suddenly increase”.

• Overall, the Tribunal considered that however well-intentioned the action of the local authority had been, emergency remedial action was not a course of action available to them for the Excess Cold and Food Safety hazards.