Appeal Against Demolition Order Dismissed in First-tier Tribunal
📌 In brief
A local authority issued a Demolition Order to demolish a property because it posed serious safety risks. The owner appealed but the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the order.
⚖️ Legal holding
A local authority may issue a Demolition Order under the Housing Act 1985 if a property poses Category 1 Hazards.
📖 What the law says
Anyone who feels wronged by a Demolition Order can appeal to a residential property tribunal within 28 days of the order being made. However, someone living in the property under a lease or agreement with an unexpired term of three years or less cannot bring an appeal.
This section transfers the jurisdiction for appeals related to demolition orders from the county court to a residential property tribunal. It also updates references to courts and tribunals in various sections of the Housing Act 1985.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The appeal against a Demolition Order was dismissed, upholding the order to demolish a property due to Category 1 Hazards.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed an appeal against a Demolition Order issued by a local authority, upholding the order to demolish a property due to Category 1 Hazards. Judge S McGrath presided over the case.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/45UC/HDO/2022/0001
Property
:
[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
Mr [COUNSEL] LLP
Respondent
:
[redacted]
Representative
:
Mrs [COUNSEL] of Application
:
Appeal against a Demolition Order S269(1) Housing Act 1985 as amended by S.48 Housing Act 2004
Tribunal member
:
Judge S McGrath
Date of Hearing
Date of Decision
:
: 21 November 2022 (remote as video proceedings)
28 November 2022
ORDER
2 Definitions
In this order the following definitions shall apply:
The ‘Category 1 Hazards’ shall mean the category 1 hazards identified and described in the demolition order issued by the Respondent on 1st March 2022 The ‘Demolition Order’ shall mean the demolition order issued by the Respondent on 1st March 2022 in respect of the Property The ‘Property’ shall mean [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] The ‘Remedial Works’ shall mean the works listed in the Schedule annexed to this order titled ‘Schedule of Works’
ORDER
1. The appeal is dismissed.
The Demolition Order
2. The Demolition Order shall be deemed operative from 21st November 2022.
3. The Appellant shall execute demolition works within 28 days from 1st July 2023 unless: (a) a written request is made to the Respondent seeking an extension of time to address the Category 1 Hazards and (b) having considered any such request, the Respondent agrees to a variation. The Appellant should ensure that any such request is sent and received by the Respondent by 1st June 2023.
4. From 29th July 2023 the Respondent shall be permitted to execute the Demolition Order if an extension of time has not been requested and granted and the Category 1 Hazards still subsist.
The Remedial Works
5. The Appellant shall complete the Remedial Works by 21st December 2022.
6. Should the Remedial Works not be completed by 21st December 2022, the Respondent shall be entitled to complete the remedial works and
3 charge the Appellant for the cost of conducting the Remedial Works and any officer time reasonably incurred.
7. Until Demolition, the Appellant shall arrange for the Property to be inspected on a monthly basis and ensure that the Property remains secure, and all plants and other growth is kept reasonably neat and tidy at all times.
8. There shall be liberty to apply to amend the order.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case by email at [EMAIL]
2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.
3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28- day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28- day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.
4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
4 Schedule of Works
1. The general clearance of all plant growth and brambles from the exterior of the site back to the boundary markers.
2. The remains of any old sheds/timber stores currently covered by brambles will be cleared as well as the ivy and plant growth off the actual building of Phares Courtledge.
3. Any rubbish to be removed from site.
4. The hedge/plants running down the side driveway to be cut back.
5. The section of herras fencing stopping access to the site at rear to be fixed to the adjoining structures with a padlock and chain to make as secure as reasonably possible.
6. The front boundary (where it overlooks High Street) be left as is to an approximate line of 1.5m back from the boundary.
7. Generally, the whole site externally to be left clean and tidy with everything trimmed back.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Appeal Against Improvement Notice Dismissed by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Confirms Prohibition Orders Against Non-Conforming HMOs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Application for Rent Repayment Order Rejected by First-tier Tribun…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Confirms HMO Status Based on Significant Use
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Improvement Notice Despite Sale Plans
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds £20,803 Penalty for Unlicenced HMO Operation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Denies Reinstatement of Withdrawn Appeal Due to Non-Payment
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Dismisses Cost Recovery Appeal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Fined for Unlicensed HMO Operation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Appointment of Manager for Tenant
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Confirms Improvement Notice Against Unlicensed HMO
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Late Appeal Against Prohibition Order
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The demolition order became effective from the date of the hearing.
- The appellant must carry out demolition works within 28 days from July 1, 2023, unless an extension is granted.
- The respondent council can proceed with demolition if an extension is not granted and hazards remain.
- The appellant must complete specific remedial works by December 21, 2022.
- The appellant must ensure the property is inspected monthly and kept secure and tidy until demolition.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided to dismiss the appeal against a Demolition Order issued by a local authority.
Who was involved?
The local authority and the property owner were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to uphold the Demolition Order because the property posed serious safety risks known as Category 1 Hazards.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1985 and the Housing Act 2004 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the property posed significant safety risks, classified as Category 1 Hazards.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should expect their appeal to be dismissed if the property poses significant safety risks.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing the property posed significant safety risks was crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.