AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·25 July 2019

First-tier Tribunal Approves Interim Empty Dwelling Order for Vacant Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal approved an Interim Empty Dwelling Management Order for a property that had been vacant for over nine years. This decision allows the local authority to manage the property while seeking a permanent solution.

⚖️ Legal holding

A local authority may apply for an Interim Empty Dwelling Management Order for a continuously vacant property under certain conditions.

Topics

vacant propertieslocal authority powers

Provisions

Housing Act 2004 s.133

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 2004 s.133

A local housing authority can apply for an Interim Empty Dwelling Management Order (EDMO) if the property is continuously unoccupied and the owner is not a public sector body. Before applying, the authority must make reasonable efforts to notify the property owner and understand their intentions regarding occupancy. The authority must also consider the rights of the property owner and the interests of the wider community.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal approved an Interim Empty Dwelling Management Order for a vacant property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal granted an Interim Empty Dwelling Management Order for a property that had been continuously vacant since at least July 2009, under Section 133 of the Housing Act 2004.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

CHI/24UP/HYI/2017/0002

Property

46 Harrow Down, Badger Farm, Winchester, Hampshire [POSTCODE]

Applicant

[redacted]

Representative

[COUNSEL], Team Leader Private Sector Housing

Respondent: [redacted]

Type of Application

The approval of an Interim Empty Dwelling Management Order

Tribunal Member(s)

Judge Tildesley OBE

Date and venue of Hearing

8 April 2019 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision

8 April 2019

DECISION

1. The Tribunal received an application for authorisation to make an Interim Empty Dwelling Management Order (Interim EDMO) for the property in accordance with Section 133 of the Housing Act 2004.

2. The property has been continuously vacant since at least July 2009. The proceedings have been ongoing since 4 January 2018, and have been adjourned on various occasions to give Mr [RESPONDENT] an opportunity to pursue a planning application in respect of the property. Mr [RESPONDENT] has not been successful with his planning application.

3. The Tribunal convened a hearing on 8 April 2019 to determine the application. Mr [COUNSEL], [NAME], represented the Council and was accompanied by [NAME]. Mr [RESPONDENT] appeared in person.

4. At the hearing Mr [RESPONDENT] agreed to the making of an Interim EDMO for the property. In return the Council undertook the following:

• To use its best endeavours to obtain best value quotations for the renovation of the property.

• To keep Mr [RESPONDENT] informed of the quotations prior to the instruction of contractors to carry out the renovation.

• Any council tax liability once the Interim EDMO is made will be borne by the Council

Decision

5. The Tribunal authorise Winchester City Council to make an interim EDMO in respect of 46 Harrow Down, Badger Farm, Winchester [POSTCODE] with effect from 8 April 2019 for the period of 12 months.

6. A copy of the Order is attached.

7. The Tribunal records the undertakings given by the Council.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

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 property has been continuously vacant for at least six months.
There is no reasonable expectation that the property will be occupied soon.
The local housing authority meets the necessary conditions to apply for an interim EDMO.
The tribunal considers it reasonable and proportionate to dispense with strict consultation requirements.
The claim involves the application of established legal provisions related to unoccupied properties.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to approve an Interim Empty Dwelling Management Order for a vacant property.

Who was involved?

The local authority and the owner of the vacant property were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the order because the property had been continuously vacant for over nine years.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 133 of the Housing Act 2004 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The continuous vacancy of the property was the most important factor.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was in favour of the local authority.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also qualify for an Interim Empty Dwelling Management Order if their property has been vacant for a long time.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing the property's continuous vacancy was crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.