Southern RPT Panel decision summaries

(use CTRL+F to search on the page)

Rent Assessment Panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/00MS/HIN/2006/0002

Local authority: Southampton City Council

Determination date: 26th February 2007 (No Hearing)

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Excess Cold

Order: The Council was ordered to pay half (£75) of the applicant’s fee.

Points of interest:

• The Council had asked the landlord to provide an up-to-date gas safety certificate within 14 days or to disable the gas supply and provide electric storage heaters. The landlord disabled the gas supply but didn’t provide alternative heating, pending Council advice, which was not forthcoming. The Council served an Improvement Notice in respect of a Category 1 Hazard for Excess Cold. The landlord appealed and a hearing was due to take place on 29/11/06. The tenant took County Court proceedings for an injunction requiring reinstatement of the heating system. An interim injunction was issued on 3/11/06, the gas supply was reconnected and the Council withdrew the Notice on 21/11/06. The Tribunal found fault on both sides, hence its order.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/23UB/HIN/2007/0002

Local authority: Cheltenham Borough Council

Hearing date: 6th March 2007

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazards: Excess Cold, Food Safety, Falls on the level, Collision & Entrapment

Order: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Points of interest:

• The “applicant” had been a tenant since 1986. Only a person on whom notice had been SERVED could appeal. The tenant had merely received a copy.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/23UE/HIN/2007/0004

Local authority: Gloucester City Council

Hearing date: 31st May 2007

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Fire

Order: The appeal was dismissed. The tribunal was satisfied that the

Notice had been properly served pursuant to Section 11 of the Housing

Act 2004.

Points of interest:

• The applicant had lived in the ground floor flat as an owner-occupier for 17 years. He believed that the Council was issuing the Notice pursuant to HMO powers. The flat had two stand alone smoke detectors. It had no common parts shared with other flats in the building, but several rooms below another flat. The whole building had been converted into flats in about 1980. All of the other flats had entrances off a common stairway in the main building, and smoke and heat detectors hard wired into a central fire alarm system based on the ground floor of the main building.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/18UG/HIN/2007/0005

Local authority: South Hams District Council

Hearing date: 11th July 2007

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazards: Damp & Mould Growth, Excess Cold

Order: The Notice was confirmed.

Points of interest:

• The Tribunal allowed the appeal to proceed despite it being made out of time. There was an extensive roof leak, poorly maintained storage heaters and inadequate insulation. The applicant claimed that the Hazards did not exist or had been greatly exaggerated; the works specified were inexact; the tenant had turned off the storage heaters as an economy measure; the time allowed was inadequate; the tenant needed to vacate the property in order to allow the works to be carried out. The Tribunal dismissed these claims.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/00HG/HIN/2007/0006

Local authority: Plymouth City Council

Hearing date: 16th October 2007

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazards: Excess Cold, Electrical Safety, Fire, Hot Surfaces

Order: The appeal was dismissed. The Notice was confirmed, subject to amendments requested by the Council. An Order requiring the applicant to pay the Council for the issue of the Notice was quashed. The Council was ordered to pay the applicant’s fee of £150.

Points of interest:

• The applicant claimed that works were in hand at the time of the Notice being issued. The Council argued that the landlord had a bad track record. Some material defects in the Notice that led to the landlord incurring unnecessary costs influenced the Tribunal in its decisions regarding expenses.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/18UE/HIN/2007/0008

Local authority: North Devon District Council

Hearing date: 31st October 2007

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazards: Damp & Mould Growth, Excess Cold, Entry by Intruders, Falling on Stairs, Electrical Safety

Order: The Notice was varied

Points of interest:

• Although the Notice was correctly served on a managing agent, the Tribunal said that it should be varied so as to require the specified action to be taken by the owner, who was resident overseas.

• The schedule of works was varied in respect of works to alleviate Damp & Mould Growth.

• The timescale for carrying out the works was changed from 84 days to six months after the effective date.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/23UB/HIN/2007/0009

Local authority: Cheltenham Borough Council

Hearing date: 12th November 2007

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Excess Cold

Order: The Notice was quashed. The respondent was not entitled torecover any charge for service of the Notice.

Points of interest:

• The Notice was quashed. The respondent was not entitled to recoverany charge for service of the Notice.

• The Tribunal said that the applicants were co-operating fully to do theworks required.

• The Tribunal was not persuaded that a Category 1 Hazard for ExcessCold existed and it questioned the assessed likelihood of 1 in 100 because of the existing heating. The flat was unoccupied and the applicants intended to sell it.

• The Tribunal said that the respondent acted hastily and prematurelyand did not explain matters sufficiently to the respondent.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/21UC/HIN/2007/0012

Local authority: Eastbourne Borough Council

Hearing date: 13th February 2008

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazards: Excess Cold, Falling between Levels, Electrical Safety

Order: The Tribunal confirmed the Notice and found that the Council’scosts of £350 were reasonable.

Points of interest:

• The Tribunal said that there had been sufficient consultation with the respondent prior to the service of the Notice and that the Notice was the most appropriate course of action.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/21UC/HIN/2008/0001

Local authority: Eastbourne Borough Council

Hearing date: 18th February 2008

Notice served: Improvement Notice (not appealed against; the applicant appealed to the Tribunal to object to the charges).

Hazard: N/A

Order: The Tribunal determined that it had no jurisdiction to alter

charges demanded because there was no appeal against the  underlying

Notice. If it had had jurisdiction, it would have confirmed the Notice.

Points of interest:

• As above

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/45UC/HIN/2008/0005

Local authority: Arun District Council

Hearing date: 12th June 2008

Notice served: Improvement Notice (& Prohibition Order)

Hazard: Various

Order: The Tribunal confirmed both the Notice and the Order as they stood.

Point of Interest:

• The Tribunal said that the Council had offered numerous opportunities to the applicant to discuss the matter.

• On the basis of a site visit prior to the hearing, the Tribunal did not accept that works required by the Notices had been completed. Neither did it accept that it was inappropriate to serve Notices because the applicant was in the process of refurbishing the property, nor that some of the defects were due to the actions of a former tenant.

• The respondent claimed that the buildings in respect of which the Prohibition Order had been made did not constitute a dwelling, but the Tribunal did not uphold this ground.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/00HB/HIN/2008/0004

Local authority: Bristol City Council

Determination date: 4th July 2008

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Excess Cold

Order: The Tribunal ordered the Council to reimburse the applicant’s fees.

Points of interest:

• The applicant appealed on the ground that there were no occupiers when the inspection that led to service of the Notice took place.

• The Council subsequently revoked the Notice, mainly because it had not served the correct notices of inspection pursuant to Section 239(5) of the Act. It notified the applicant and the Tribunal that it had done so. It invited the representatives of the applicants to withdraw the appeal.

• The representatives asked the Tribunal to allow their costs incurred in the matter, because the Council had acted unreasonably, and to order the return of their application fee. The Tribunal’s view was that the Council had made an inadvertent mistake rather than acted unreasonably.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/00HA/HIN/2008/0007

Local authority: Bath & North East Somerset Council

Hearing date: 30th September 2008

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Excess Cold

Order: The Tribunal confirmed the Notice, but varied the Schedule of Works.

Points of interest:

• The Council removed some items from the Schedule of Works because the property was a Listed Building.

• The Tribunal varied the Schedule of Works to allow the installation of fixed modern panel type heaters with timers and thermostatic controls to each bed sit, as an alternative to, rather than in addition to electric night storage heaters with off peak electricity. In all other respects the Tribunal confirmed the Schedule of Works.

• The Tribunal invited the Council to serve on the applicant an amended timetable for works required, because the appeal took several weeks to conclude.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/46UD/HIN/2008/0010

Local authority: Salisbury District Council

Hearing date: 20th March 2009

Notice served: Improvement Notice

Hazard: Excess Cold (Category 1) and Food Safety (Category 2)

Order: The Tribunal varied the Notice in terms of extending the time period for completion of remedial work for the Excess Cold hazard

Points of interest:

• This appeal centred solely upon the time period given in the Improvement Notice served on the 26th November 2008 to remedy a category 1 Excess Cold hazard. The requirement was for work to be started by the 26th January 2009 and to be completed by the 26th February 2009. The appellant proposed to carry out heating works by the end of September 2009 and double- glazing work by the end of March 2010.

• The Tribunal considered that the appellants proposed timescale was unreasonably long and took into account the local authority’s concern about the need for work to be completed prior to the winter. As such, the start and completion dates were varied to the 3rd August 2009 and 31st August 2009 respectively.

• In arriving at their decision, the Tribunal did express some misgivings about the scoring of the Excess Cold hazard but that there was a deficiency at the property.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/18UH/HIN/2009/0003

Local authority: TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL

Hearing date: 24TH APRIL 2009

Notice served: IMPROVEMENT NOTICE

Hazard: EXCESS COLD

Order: The Improvement Notice was varied.

Points of interest:

• This was a paper determination.

• The property in question was a listed barn conversion.

• The Tribunal agreed with the assessment of a Category 1 Hazard but was reluctant to determine that the only remedial action to eliminate the Hazard was replacement of the existing windows with double glazed units, when insulation of the external walls would offer more of an improvement in respect of heat loss.

• The Notice was varied to specify replacement of the windows with Listed Buildings Consent OR insulation of the external walls and replacement of existing heaters.

Prohibition Order case summaries

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/00HB/HOPO/2007/0005

Local authority: Bristol City Council

Hearing date: 4th April 2007

Notice served: Prohibition Order

Hazard: Crowding & Space

Order: The Prohibition Order was varied from being suspended until a change in tenancy takes place to being suspended for nine months  from its date of service or until a change in the number of occupiers takes place, whichever occurs first.

Points of interest:

• Both the applicant and the respondent (the tenant and the Council respectively) had legal representation, making the hearing a lot more formal than is normally the case. The Council applied to the RPT for leave to appeal but this was turned down. An appeal was made to the Lands Tribunal who refused to hear the case. Legal opinion was that there was no basis upon which to seek Judicial Review of the decision.

• West of England Local Authorities HHSRS Group opinion is that this decision should be regarded as having set “precedent” in terms of this hazard and how the most appropriate action decision and the making of a Prohibition Order should be considered and made.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/00MR/HPO/2007/0001 & 0002

Local authority: Portsmouth City Council

Hearing date: 18th April 2007

Notices served: Prohibition Order

Hazards: Multiple hazards

Order: Both appeals were dismissed and the Prohibition Orders were confirmed.

Points of interest:

• Four Prohibition Orders were served in relation to self-contained flats at the same address. Two appeals were withdrawn prior to the hearing. The applicant tried to postpone the hearing, but was unsuccessful.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/00HB/HPO/2007/0006

Local authority: Bristol City Council

Hearing date: 28th January 2008

Notice served: Prohibition Order

Hazard: Crowding & Space

Order: The Prohibition Order and any charges relating to it were quashed.

Points of interest:

• Eight persons in four households occupied the property in question. The Prohibition Order stipulated occupation of the property by no more than five persons. Remedial measures suggested were either to reduce the occupancy to five persons or to provide additional facilities to enable occupation by up to seven persons. The Order was suspended for 100 days. The applicant argued that there was no need to issue the Order because there were only four people. Regardless of all of this, the Tribunal ruled that no notice of inspection had been given to the occupiers hence the Order was invalidated.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/00MH/HPO/2008/0001

Local authority: Torbay Council

Hearing date: 19th May 2008

Notices served: Prohibition Orders

Hazards: Fire, Falling on Stairs, Excess Cold, Hot Surfaces

Order: The Prohibition Orders and any charges relating to it were quashed.

Points of interest:

• Two Prohibition Orders were served in relation to a main house and a detached annexe in the garden. The Tribunal ruled that no notice of inspection had been given to the applicant or to the occupiers hence the Order was invalidated.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/00HN/HPO/2009/0001

Local authority: BOURNEMOUTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Hearing date: 20TH MAY 2009

Notice served: PROHIBITION ORDER

Hazards: EXCESS COLD; FALLING BETWEEN LEVELS; NOISE; ENTRY BY INTRUDERS

Order: The Prohibition Order was quashed and the Council’s claim for costs relating to it was dismissed.

Points of interest:

• The applicant had carried out extensive works following informal advice from the Council, but was subsequently told that some items previously considered to have been dealt with were in fact still outstanding.

• Two weeks prior to the service of the Prohibition Order, the applicant wrote to the Council to say that the property was unoccupied and would remain so until sold. He assumed that matters would then be held in abeyance, pending sale.

• Without further communication the Prohibition Order was served.

• The Tribunal decided that a Prohibition Order was not appropriate for the Hazards present and that for all of the Hazards, the likelihood of an outcome causing harm was no different to the national average.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/23UF/HPO/2009/0002

Local authority: STROUD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Hearing date: 16TH JUNE 2009

Notice served: PROHIBITION ORDER

Hazard: EXCESS COLD

Order: The Prohibition Order was quashed.

Points of interest:

• The assessment of the Hazard was correct although the panel considered that it was incorrect to discount the portable electrical heaters that were provided even though the Operating Guidance was unclear on this point.

• The Prohibition Order was served after the tenant had found alternative accommodation.

• The Tribunal said that the Council did not have regard to the Enforcement Guidance or its own policies.

• The making of a Prohibition Order was premature and could have been avoided if the Council had entered into discussions with the applicant.

Emergency Action case summaries

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/23UB/HIN/2007/0002

Local authority: Swindon Borough Council

Hearing date: 1st March 2007

Notice served: Emergency Remedial Action Notice (not appealed against; the appeal was against the Notice of Demand for Expenses) (indexed on RPTS site under Improvement Notices).

Hazard: Fire

Order: The Notice of Demand for Expenses was confirmed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent in full.

Points of interest:

• The fire alarm and the emergency lighting were not working; the applicant contended that he had arrangements in hand for the work and that the Council’s costs were excessive; the Tribunal ruled that the Council did not have to give the landlord any time and that although the costs were on the high side, one would expect to pay a premium for priority works.

Rent assessment panel: SOUTHERN

Case number: CHI/21UD/HEP/2008/0002

Local authority: Hastings Borough Council

Hearing date: 21st July 2008

Notice served: Emergency Prohibition Order

Hazard: Fire

Order: The Emergency Prohibition Order was confirmed, save for the amendment that the fire detection and alarm system to be installed in the basement flat was to be a Category LD2 Grade D system, rather than Grade A.

Points of interest:

• The Order related to a basement/ground floor maisonette, which had been converted into a basement flat only by the time of the appeal. The applicant argued for a stand-alone fire detection and alarm system. The Tribunal said that the applicant could elect to install such a system and it was then up to the respondent to reassess the risks then vary the order or revoke the order with the possibility of a further Improvement Notice, if appropriate.