Simon v Denbigh

This case involved Denbigh Town Council who served an improvement notice but 3 weeks prior to the appeal being heard, they withdraw the notice due toi an error and re-served it 3 months later. The Upper Tribunal held that the ‘withdrawal’ of a notice is unacceptable as it is too informal. Notices can be revoked, quashed, suspended, amended or confirmed but not withdraw. This case highlights the importance of using the correct terminology when serving legal notices. The Tribunal also stated that the poor service of a notice is not an acceptable reason for the notice to be revoked.

Wood v Kingston

This involved 2 dwellings, a ground floor, and a first floor flat. A fire risk was identified in the first floor flat which required insulation to be fitted between the 2 dwellings. The local authority served improvement notices on both dwellings and this was appealed to the Upper Tribunal based on 2 points:

• That the notice served on the resident of the ground floor required the landlord to complete works on a property he had no legal interest in, and

• That the dual notices offered different options to remedy the fire issue as opposed to a single course of action, causing confusion.

The Upper Tribunal decided that both notices were valid and instructed for the works to be completed from the ground floor apartment as the work would only cost £1,000 compared to a cost of £7,000 to complete the work from the dwelling the notice related to and be far more disruptive.

Hastings v Braear

This case involved an unlicensed house of multiple occupation (HMO) comprising of 5 flats which were being looked after by a management company employed by the landlord. The Improvement notice served by the local authority was served on the landlord, and the management company. The management company appealed on the grounds that they were not the owner of the dwelling. However, it was held that when serving a notice, where a license is in place, the notice is to be served on the license holder. In cases of unlicensed HMO’s the notice is to be served on the person(s) in control of the property, which in this case was the management company employed by the landlord, so the notice was valid.

Clark v MCC

This involved a 6 bedroom HMO which contained a small box room of 5.8 square meters incorporating a bed deck in the attic with stairs up to it. The local authority granted a license for the landlord to rent 5 rooms in the property only as they deemed that the box room did not meet the required space standards when considered in isolation. The landlord submitted an appeal which was upheld by the Upper Tier tribunal who provided that when considering space standards, the property should be considered as a whole as opposed to each room in isolation. It was also stated that local authority space standards policy should be flexible.

Hyndburn v Brown

The local authority introduced a selective licensing scheme, a condition of which was that all properties should have a carbon monoxide detector fitted and an electrical safety check undertaken. The Upper Tribunal decided that the local authority were within their rights to make the request as part of their selective licensing scheme. The defendant is currently trying to appeal this case to the Court of Appeal.

No Comments