Reservoir Cottage, 1 Wildcroft Road, London SW15 3TP (Housing Act 2004 and Housing and Planning Act 2016 - Prohibition orders)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant is the owner of a single-storey detached cottage located at Reservoir Cottage, 1 Wildcroft Road, London SW15 3TP ("the Property"). The Property had been converted into residential use and let under a shorthold tenancy agreement commencing 5 October 2015. On 17 November 2017, the Respondent local authority inspected the Property and identified both category 1 and category 2 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. The Respondent subsequently issued a Prohibition Notice dated 27 November 2017, prohibiting residential use of the Property and requiring remedial works, relying solely on category 1 hazards including Excess Cold, Electrical Hazards, and Fire Hazards, comprising 23 defects.

The Appellant appealed the Prohibition Notice. Prior to the hearing, the tribunal conducted an inspection of the Property with the parties present. The appeal was heard as a rehearing, requiring the Respondent to prove that the Prohibition Notice was properly made under the Housing Act 2004. The tribunal was then to decide whether to confirm, quash, or vary the Notice.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Prohibition Notice dated 27 November 2017 was validly served and properly made under the requirements of the Housing Act 2004.
2. Whether the identified hazards justified the issuance of the Prohibition Notice.
3. Whether the tribunal should confirm, quash, or vary the Prohibition Notice pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent provided evidence of notification letters sent to the Property address giving at least 24 hours' notice of the inspection on 17 November 2017, as required by section 239 of the Housing Act 2004.
• The inspection identified serious category 1 hazards that could not be remedied while the Property was occupied, especially given the presence of children.
• Service of notices at the Property address was appropriate as it was the last known address of the Appellant according to the land registry, and alternative addresses in the Respondent’s records were considered insufficient grounds to deviate from this approach.
• Any alleged lack of direct notice did not prejudice the Appellant, as evidenced by the filing of this appeal.

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the first contact with the Respondent's officers was only on 23 November 2017, after the inspection had taken place without proper notice to the Appellant or her agent.
• The Appellant argued that many defects identified were caused by the tenant's actions, including damage to windows, heating, and electrical systems.
• The tenant had withheld rent and prevented the landlord/agent and contractors from accessing the Property to conduct repairs.
• The Appellant submitted that the defects could be more appropriately addressed by a Hazard Awareness Notice rather than a Prohibition Notice.
• Contact details for the landlord/agent had been provided to the Respondent earlier in 2017, including office address, email, and telephone numbers, but these were not used to give notice of inspection.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The tribunal found the Property vacant and undergoing significant repair works at the time of inspection, with much damage attributed to the tenant’s actions. The tribunal determined that issuing the Prohibition Notice was inappropriate given the tenant-caused damage and ongoing repairs.

Critically, the tribunal analyzed the statutory requirements under section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 regarding the necessity of giving at least 24 hours' notice of inspection to the owner and occupier. The tribunal found that the Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to ascertain or use alternative contact details for the Appellant or her agent, despite such information being available in their own records and the tenancy agreement.

Relying solely on service at the Property address without further inquiry was insufficient and led to invalidation of the notice of inspection, the inspection itself, and consequently the Prohibition Notice. The tribunal emphasized that compliance with statutory notice requirements is mandatory and not subject to considerations of prejudice.

Had the Appellant or her agent been present at the inspection, the tenant-caused damage and prior repair attempts could have been explained, potentially affecting the Respondent’s decision to issue the Prohibition Notice.

Holding and Implications

The tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the Prohibition Notice dated 27 November 2017.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Prohibition Notice is invalid and unenforceable. The tribunal did not establish any new legal precedent but reinforced the mandatory nature of proper service and notice requirements under the Housing Act 2004. The decision underscores the necessity for local authorities to take reasonable steps to ascertain and use correct contact details for landlords or their agents before issuing enforcement notices.