First-tier Tribunal Upholds Prohibition Orders and Improvement Notice

OUTCOME: Dismissed

1

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : MAN/00DA/HPO/2021/0011, 12, 18, 19

MAN/00DA/HIN/2023/0001

MAN/00DA/HPO/2022/0004

Property : 41 & [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] : (1) [NAME] &

(2) [NAME]

Respondent : [redacted]

Type of Application : Housing Act 2004, Schedule 2 Para. 7(1)

Tribunal Member : [NAME] P Barber (Tribunal Judge) [NAME] (Est Man) MRICS (Tribunal Member)

Date of Hearing : 22 February 2024

Date of Decision : 22 February 2024

______________________________________________ DECISION AND REASONS ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

2

DECISION

The Tribunal confirms the Prohibition Orders served under sections 20 and 21 of the Housing Act 2004 (“the Act”) and the Improvement Notice served under section 12 of the Act.

REASONS

1. This Decision and Reasons relates to four applications by one of the owners and [NAME] of the properties known as 41 and [ADDRESS], Leeds [POSTCODE] (“the properties”).

2. 0001 relates to an improvement notice in relation to the main house dated 17 October 2022 and at page 447 of the Respondent’s bundle; 004 relates to a suspended prohibition order in relation to the main house dated 17 October 2022 and at page 451 of the Respondent’s bundle; 0011 relates to a prohibition order in relation to 41A the studio annex dated 23 July 2021 reproduced at page 222 of the Respondent’s bundle and 0019 relates to a prohibition order in relation to the internal ground floor self-contained flat, dated 23 July 2021 and reproduced at page 209 of the Respondent’s bundle.

3. Originally there was an appeal under reference 0012 concerning a revoked prohibition order but that appeal has now lapsed and an appeal under reference 0018 against the prohibition order relating to the self- contained annex but [NAME] [NAME] has taken no part in these proceedings and insofar as is necessary it is struck out.

Background

4. The Appellant is the joint owner and joint landlord of the properties having purchased the same with his wife, who also appeared at the hearing.

Inspection

5. The Tribunal inspected the property on the morning of the hearing in the company of [NAME], [NAME] [NAME], Housing Officer Leeds City Council, Ms [COUNSEL], Solicitor, Leeds City Council and Ms [COUNSEL], [NAME] for Leeds City Council. The tenants were also present.

6. The property is a three-bedroom, post 1979 inner, through terrace property which originally comprised of a living room to the front of the property with a kitchen and diner to the rear. There is a small yard to the front and a small yard to the rear.

3

7. Presently, the layout of the downstairs is that the front doors enter into a communal kitchen/dining area. There is a door to an inner lobby at the far side of which there are stairs to the first floor. Under the stairs there is a communal washing machine opposite and adjacent to which there is a door to a downstairs self-contained bedsit comprising of one room in which living, sleeping, dining and cooking is to take place with a cubicle style bathroom/toilet adjacent to the back door of the property. The rear door to the original property layout can be accessed from this bedsit and provides access to the rear yard.

8. To the left-hand side of the rear yard a separate annex single storey annex has been created, comprising of bedsit accommodation in which living, sleeping, dining and cooking is to take place with a small cubicle style bathroom/toilet adjacent.

9. The first floor is accessed via an internal staircase and upstairs there are three further bedrooms together with shared bathroom/toilet facilities. [NAME] (who occupies the smallest bedroom) also has access to an internal room in which there is a desk and cupboard.

10. In total, 5 persons occupy the property, 2 of whom have self-contained accommodation in the form of the bedsits mentioned above, and 3 of whom share living and bathing/toilet space.

11. Generally, we found the layout and description of the property as detailed in [NAME] [NAME] witness statement and associated attached documents to be accurate and reliable.

12. We accept, and it was clear from the current layout of the property, that originally it would have been a two-bedroom family type home with a living room and kitchen/dining room downstairs with two bedrooms and a bathroom/toilet upstairs.

History of Events 13. [NAME] [NAME] [NAME], the Housing Officer who initially oversaw the involvement of Leeds City Council has provided a detailed witness statement setting out her involvement in the enforcement action.

14. She first became involved following a referral by the local Councillor who alleged that the property should be subject to a HMO licence as it had been advertised for occupation by up to 6 persons in spareroom.com. Specifically, the property was advertised as suitable for occupation by students.

15. Following no response to letters from [NAME], [NAME] [NAME] carried out a “door knocking exercise” on the 29 April 2021 where she spoke to two tenants who advised that they occupied two double bedrooms on the first floor and that there were currently 3 people living in the property with two people living in the annex.

4

16. On the 10 June 2021, following the service of a notice under section 239 of the Housing Act 2004, [NAME] [NAME] carried out a formal inspection of the property in the company of her colleague, [NAME] [NAME] and the owners of the property, [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME]. It was established at the inspection that the property did not require a HMO licence as only three persons shared amenities (two of the occupants had self-contained accommodation) but it was also established, following a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment, that the property, including the self-contained accommodation, was subject to various category 1 and category 2 hazards, including excess cold, crowding and space, [NAME], entry by intruders, personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage and electrical and fire safety.

17. On the 15 June 2021, [NAME] [NAME] wrote to the owners advising that the two self-contained flats were considered to be “far too small” and that this constituted a serious risk to health and safety of the occupants and following what the Respondent describes as an unsatisfactory response, formal notices were served on the 23 July 2021, under sections 8 (reasons for decision to take enforcement action), 20 (prohibition order category one) and 21 (prohibition order category 2) of the Housing Act 2004 on the landlord and the tenant of 41A together with a notice under section 50 (recovery of charges) of that Act on the landlord.

18. The prohibition order in relation to the ground floor main house flat identified the following category 1 hazards: crowding and space and fire safety, and the following category 2 hazards: entry by intruders, [NAME], personal hygiene and sanitation and electrical hazards. In relation to 41A the following category 1 hazards were identified: excess cold, crowding and space and [NAME] and the following category 2 hazards: person hygiene and sanitation and fire safety.

19. At the same time, a prohibition order was served in relation to the shared accommodation part of the main house, but this was revoked on the 04 August 2022 under section 25(2) of the Housing Act 2004 as it was felt that the order did not deal fully with the hazards at the property. On the 12 September 2022, the Respondent reinspected the main house and subsequently, on 17 October 2022, an improvement notice and a prohibition notice (suspended) was served in relation to the main shared accommodation with respect to the following category 1 hazards: crowding and space and the following category 2 hazards: fire safety, flames and hot surfaces and [NAME].

20. [NAME] [APPELLANT] (joint owner) and [NAME] [APPELLANT] (tenant of self- contained rear annex flat) appealed those notices to this Tribunal, and we held an oral face-to-face hearing of that appeal on the 22 February 2024.

21. [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] did not attend but [NAME] [NAME] attended with his wife and joint owner, [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]. [NAME] [NAME] was unable to attend the hearing but we had a detailed witness statement from her dated 09 August 2022 together with extensive documentary evidence annexed to that witness statement. [NAME] [NAME], who has been actively involved in the

5

case for Leeds City Council attended in her place and had himself provided a detailed witness statement date 18 May 2023 dealing with the issues. [NAME] [NAME] also gave live evidence before the Tribunal and the Appellant had the opportunity to cross examine him on that evidence.

22. In support of their case, the Respondent also provided the Tribunal with the following documents which we considered and took account of in our deliberations:

a. Report of [NAME], expert for Leeds City Council in relation to crowding and space. b. [COMPANY]. c. Crowding and space worked examples – DASH, Bristol City Council and RHE. d. Fire Safety Principles for Residential Accommodation and associated materials including worked examples by Bristol City Council. e. Crowding and Space Guidance by Leeds City Council and Leeds City Council Enforcement Policy.

23. We took evidence from both owners of the property, and we made various findings of fact by application of the [NAME] legislation as follows.

The Law 24. The Respondent Local Authority is responsible, by law, for the operation of a regime designed to evaluate potential risks to health and safety from deficiencies in dwellings, and to enforce compliance with the standards required. The scheme, established under the Housing Act 1984 (“the Act”), and supplemented by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005 (“the Regulations”), is called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).

25. Section 1(1) of the Act provides for a system of assessing the condition of residential dwellings and for that system to be used in the enforcement of housing standards in relation to such premises. The HHSRS operates by reference to the existence of Category 1 or Category 2 hazards on residential premises, and Section 2(1) of the Act defines a Category 1 hazard as one which achieves a numerical score under a prescribed method of calculating the seriousness of a hazard. A Category 2 hazard is one that does not score highly enough to be a Category 1 hazard. "Hazard", in this context means any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential [NAME] of a dwelling which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling.

26. Section 4 of the Act provides the procedure which must be followed before a local authority can commence any enforcement action and, section 5(1) provides that: “If a local authority consider that a category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, they have a duty to take the appropriate enforcement action in relation to the hazard”.

6

27. Section 5(2) says that the appropriate enforcement action means whichever of the following courses of action is indicated. Those courses of action include the service of a prohibition order and, if necessary, an emergency prohibition. Section 5(3) says that if only one course of action within Section 5(2) is available to the authority in relation to the hazard, they must take that course of action. Section 5(4) says that if two or more courses of action within subsection (2) are available to the authority in relation to the hazard, they must take the course of action which they consider to be the most appropriate of those available to them.

28. By section 7 the authority has a power (but not a duty) to take action in respect of a category 2 hazard. The enforcement options for a category 2 hazard are slightly different from the options for a category 1 hazard, but they include the power to issue an Improvement Notice, make a Prohibition Order, or issue a Hazard Awareness notice.

29. [NAME] guidance has been provided by the Government in relation to the operation of the scheme in the form of the Operating Guidance and the Enforcement Guidance, both dated February 2006. The local authority must have regard to this guidance.

30. Section 20 of the Act provides greater detail as to the requirements for the service of a Prohibition Order for a category 1 hazard. Section 21 provides for the service of a Prohibition Order in respect of category 2 hazards.

31. Section 22 specifies that a Prohibition Order must specify:

a. Whether the notice is served under section 20 or 21 of the Act. b. The nature of the hazard and the residential premises on which it exists.

c. The deficiency giving rise to the hazard.

d. The premises in relation to which remedial action is to be taken in respect of the hazard and the nature of that remedial action, and

e. Any remedial action which the local authority considers appropriate in view of the hazard or hazards in respect of which the order is made.

32. By Section 22(4) the local authority has the power to specify whether the prohibition is for all purposes or for a particular purpose and Section 24 provides that the Prohibition Order comes into effect at the end of 28 days beginning with the date the Order is made.

33. Section 23 permits the suspension of a Prohibition Order and section 25 provides for revocation or variation of a Prohibition Order. The local authority must revoke an Order if at any time they are satisfied that a hazard in respect of which the Order was made does not exist on the premises.

7

34. Schedule 2 Part 3 of the Act deals with appeals in relation to Prohibition Orders. Paragraph 7 sets out a general right of appeal and that an appeal is to what is now the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

35. Paragraph 11 states that the appeal is to be by way of a rehearing but may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority was unaware. The tribunal may confirm, quash, or vary the Prohibition Order.

36. The HHSRS is set out in the 2005 Regulations and the procedure is summarised as follows:

a. There are 29 specific hazards that are identified in Schedule 1 of the Regulations as risks, and these are known as “prescribed hazards”.

b. The first step is for an [NAME] to establish, in relation to a prescribed hazard, the likelihood, during the period of 12 months beginning with 5 the date of the assessment, of a [NAME] suffering any harm as a result of that hazard. Guidance under s9 of the Act gives national average likelihoods for each prescribed hazard but the [NAME] makes an individual assessment.

c. The [NAME]’s assessment of the likelihood is converted into one of 16 representative scale points on a range of likelihoods, 1:1 (i.e., certain) to 1:5600 (i.e., very unlikely). The scale points are set out in paragraph 6 of the Regulations.

d. The second judgement for the [NAME] is the possible harm outcomes, that could affect a person (who is a member of the most vulnerable group) as a result of the hazard actually occurring. This is done by assessing the range of outcomes (of which there are 4 distinct classes) by means of the average spread of harms for each dwelling type (which are provided in operating guidance) and the characteristics of and conditions at, the individual dwelling. Each of the 4 classes of harm are attributed a representational scale point which are the harm outcome scores.

e. The [NAME] then uses the two judgements made (the representational scale point for the likelihood of harm for the prescribed hazard and the four harm outcome scores) to produce a single hazard score using a formula set out in Regulation 6(5). [NAME] will use a computer model for this calculation.

f. The hazard score will be a single integer. That integer identifies the hazard as a category 1 hazard if the integer is 1,000 or more, and a category 2 hazard if the integer is less than 1,000. Each hazard is also prescribed a band, between A and J according to its actual calculated score, as set out in paragraph 7 of the Regulations.

8

37. Paragraph 4.18 of the Enforcement Guidance states: “Satisfying the requirements of the current Building Regulations, the supporting Approved Documents and [NAME] standards and Codes of Practice will usually achieve the Ideal for the majority of hazards as described in the operating guidance. In a few cases, the Ideal might be at a higher level that Building Regulations require. In practice, the difference will be negligible and is extremely unlikely to result in enforcement action.

38. In exercising its task under paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 of the Act, the Tribunal is to make up its own mind on the issue raised in the appeal, but it is required to give special weight to the decision of the local authority and only depart from it if thinks the local authority’s decision was wrong.

Our Assessment of the Appeal

39. We will deal in the first instance with our findings in relation to each of the hazards identified by the Respondent in relation to the two self- contained flats. We will then deal with the grounds of appeal and the Appellant’s oral arguments in relation to those two flats.

40. The grounds of appeal deal generally with the issues raised by the Respondent in the various notices and are set out under a number of headings the main ones being as follows: (1) Leeds City Council Housing Team have “flip-flopped” in relation to the law (by “flip-flop” the argument is that the Respondent has changed the goal posts in relation to how the Appellant’s property should be viewed in terms of the various hazards identified; (2) the Housing Team have not been transparent in their dealings with [NAME]; (3) the Housing Team have not taken into account the rights of the tenants to enjoy a peaceful and private life; (4) that the Housing Team have not counted separate storage facilities in the hallway when assessing the size of the main house flat which should include a laundry and pantry area; (5) in relation to [NAME] [NAME] argue that the space is big enough for food preparation; (6) various points are made in relation to fire safety and flame and hot surfaces which will be dealt with in the appropriate part of this Decision and Reasons.

41. In their appeal against the prohibition order in relation to the rear extension flat and the main house flat, [NAME] raise the following general grounds: (1) the extension was built following proper legal steps with the aid of an architect; (2) the Respondent is discriminating against [NAME] as there are other properties in the region equally as small and it is generally big enough for one student to live in; (3) there is a plug in radiator provided and generally the facilities in each of the flats are suitable and appropriate for occupation by one person.

9

42. We will deal with each of the hazards identified in the various notices as follows.

Main House

43. The prohibition order originally served in relation to the main house occupied by 3 persons at the time of inspection, was served on the 23 July 2021 alongside the notices in relation to the main house flat and the external flat. The prohibition order was revoked on the 04 August 2022 as it did not deal adequately with the scope of the hazards at the property. Subsequently a suspended prohibition order and improvement notice was served on the 17 October 2022 in relation to the main house. This bit of the decision therefore relates to the improvement notice and suspended prohibition order, both dated 17 October 2022.

Improvement Notice

44. The improvement notice raises two hazards, risk of fire and risk from hot surfaces.

45. In relation to risk of fire there are [NAME] in the upstairs part of the main building with emergency exit through the kitchen, which is a risk room or via the ground floor main flat which will potentially have a locked door. Currently the property does not have internal FD30 fire doors with vision panels and self-closures which the Respondent views as necessary for the safety of occupiers. We accept the opinion of [NAME] [NAME] that the nature and degree of the various occupiers, who are recruited separately and do not form a single household. For this reason, they will act independently, and a vision panel will enable them to make a choice as to the appropriate exit route.

46. We also accept that there is a significant risk from the location of the boiler and washing machine under the stairs which is the only route of escape in the event of a fire. At the time of service of the notice there was also a tumble dryer under the stairs but by the time of our inspection, this had been removed. However, the location of the washing machine still constitutes a high risk of fire.

47. We also accept that the location of the cooker increases the risks associated with escape from the property through the kitchen. A cooker is a likely source of fire and having to open the door onto a burning cooker creates a substantial risk. The location of the cooker also

10

constituted the risk of hot surfaces and that the risk of a burn from collision as someone comes through the door into the kitchen is sufficient to constitute a hazard. The cooker will need to be repositioned.

48. We also accept that there are insufficient electric sockets in the communal area for appropriate tenant usage and that the fire detection system should be interlinked throughout the property.

The Prohibition Order

49. The prohibition order dated the 17 October 2022 is based on a category 1 and a category 2 hazard.

Crowding and Space – Category 1

50. At the time of the Tribunal’s inspection, the property was still occupied by three [NAME] who had their own room/study space and sleeping accommodation upstairs and communal living, cooking and dining accommodation downstairs. The communal room is 15.34m² which we agree with the Respondent is simply too small for activities of daily life to be carried out by 3 [NAME] and should be a minimum of 25m² in accordance with the Metric Handbook. For this reason, there is insufficient space to enable 3 separate households to cook, sit and eat, relax and carry on activities associated with a communal cooking, dining and living room and there is a risk of crowding and cramped living arrangements. We also note that the tenants are expected to wash their clothes in an area underneath the stairs in the corridor outside this room.

51. In relation to the upstairs bedrooms, we agree with the Respondent that the first-floor right bedroom at 5.46m² is too small to constitute a bedroom which should be a minimum of 7.5² in accordance with the Nationally Described Space Standards. Although we note that the occupant of this room also has the use of a middle room with a sky- light, this in itself does not answer the problem associated with a room which is too small to be used as a bedroom. The fact that there are two rooms separated by a corridor is no answer to the requirement to provide appropriately sized bedroom accommodation.

[NAME]

52. We accept the Respondent’s position that there is insufficient space in the communal kitchen to provide for 3 separate households. The

11

current length of the kitchen surface area is 3.18 m² and is not sufficient to provide space for a cooker and cooking facilities, washing, base units, fridge freezer which, for 3 people should be a minimum of 4.73 m². For this reason, we note that the washing machine has had to be rehoused in the internal corridor under the stairs. We agree with the Respondent’s assessment of risk in relation to the lack of appropriate kitchen food preparation.

53. There is also a lack of appropriate food storage for the occupiers as food should not be stored under the sink. During the inspection our attention was drawn to a cupboard behind the kitchen door in the corridor which it was proposed could be utilised for storage space Main House Flat - Prohibition Order Crowding and Space 54. As noted above, we inspected this flat on the morning of the hearing and we generally confirm the dimensions and layout as set out in the Respondent’s CAD drawings and dimensions chart. In particular we find as fact that this room was originally the kitchen of the property and that it has been converted into a living, sleeping, eating and cooking space for a residential private paying tenant. The internal gross floor area is 15.69m² and the internal gross area of the bathroom is 2.08m². We note that the guidance in the “Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS)” provides that minimum gross internal floor area for a one bed, one-person self- contained accommodation with a shower is 37m². The subject accommodation is more than 50% smaller than the standard. We also take into account the expert report of [NAME], the [NAME] parts of which are quoted in the witness statement of [NAME] [NAME] and reproduced here as follows:

“It is also vital to our health. While a lack of space is rarely life- threatening in itself, it is widely accepted that it will be life- limiting; likely to curtail or prohibit activities that are considered ‘normal’. It is therefore more likely to harm our general sense of wellbeing and mental health, rather than our physical health”.

“It is clear that a growing number of buildings are being subdivided into multiple ‘homes’ that are significantly smaller than the government’s own current standard. It is now equally clear that they do not offer a ‘safe and healthy environment’. The detrimental impact that this is likely to have on people’s lives is extremely troubling.”

55. We were also provided by the Respondent with a helpful CAD drawing of how a 17.78m² room might accommodate appropriate furniture necessary for basic living and it is clear that the size and layout of the self- contained flat is insufficient to accommodate even basic items of

12

furniture so as to enable the occupant to enjoy a dignified and acceptable standard of living.

56. Turning to the HHSRS reproduced as exhibit NR12 to [NAME] [RESPONDENT] statement, we agree with the Respondent’s assessment that the lack of adequate living area due to size, lack of a separate kitchen area due to size, inappropriately sized personal hygiene and sanitation area and inadequate bedroom size are all seriously defective and represent code 3. We also agree with the likelihood of harm assessment as 1 in 56 due to the lack of space for separate household activities – sleeping, relaxing, entertaining, cooking etc and that the appropriate calculation gives rise to a hazard rating score of 2142 and a hazard band of B, giving rise to a category 1 hazard.

57. The Appellant has countered this by drawing the Tribunal’s attention to the room size of student accommodation generally in the Leeds area. We accept that student purpose-built accommodation can be small and, in some respects, unreasonably small but we are not comparing like with like and as the Respondent has pointed out, each property must be assessed on its own basis. We take note of the following facts a) that purpose build student accommodation is not designed to be occupied throughout the year and there will be lengthy periods when the [NAME] returns to their main accommodation; b) the accommodation will probably not be the main or only accommodation of the [NAME]; c) as students, a large proportion of their time will be spent elsewhere, studying in the library and suchlike; there will often be larger communal areas where the students can relax and socialise with larger cooking areas.

58. For those reasons the Appellant’s arguments in relation to space have little merit.

Risk of Fire 59. We accept the Respondent’s case that the door between the hallway and the opening to the communal area is ill fitting and should be self-closing being as it is a 2nd exit route for the first-floor bedrooms.

Entry by Intruders

60. We agree that a key box is inappropriate for use outside a property which is self-contained. The fact that any other person entering the main building communal area might be able to gain access to this self- contained flat contravenes basic safety standards for entry by intruders.

[NAME]

61. We also agree that there is a lack of food storage in the flat in that there is only one overhead storage unit located above the cooker and two base units, together with a half-size cupboard. The location to one of the storage cupboards is inappropriate as it is below the sink and the

13

suggestion that the tenant might use a cupboard in a communal part of the property is not sustainable.

Personal Hygiene, Sanitation and Drainage

62. We agree that the flat lacks appropriate space for carrying out adequate personal hygiene in terms of showering, shaving, washing, dressing, and undressing and using the toilet. The bathroom has a gross internal area of 2.08m² with no space to dress or dry.

Electrical Hazards

63. We agree that the location of the electrical socket next to the cooker and wash basin is a potential electrical hazard and the socket should be relocated. We also accept that there are insufficient wall mounted sockets in the self-contained flat to accommodate reasonable activities of daily life which are expected to be carried on there. The use of extension cables is inappropriate.

External Flat (41A)

Excess cold

64. The external flat has no internally connected or independent source of heating with the exception of the electric wall mounted towel rail in the bathroom which is insufficient to heat the flat. The tenant had available a plug-in type electric heater but the use of this heater was inappropriate due to potential hazard of fire and excessive running costs. The heating should be hard wired with an appropriate fuse and secure fixing.

Crowding and Space

65. The external flat has a gross floor area of 15.90m² and for the reasons already provided in relation to the flat within the main building we agree with the Respondent that this area is too small to accommodate reasonable activities of daily life.

66. We note that planning was provided for the extension in order to provide additional bedroom space and not self-contained accommodation.

[NAME]

67. There is a lack of food storage in the external flat with only one overhead unit located above the washing machine and three drawer units below the work surface. The unit below the kitchen sink is inappropriate for food storage. There is also a lack of suitable work surface for the preparation of food in the kitchen area of the external flat. We agree with the Respondent that the standards as set out in the [COMPANY] should form the minimum by which accommodation is to be judged and that 4.33m is a minimum length for sink and drainer, cooker, washing machine, fried/freezer, base

14

units etc. The facilities in the external flat do not reach these minimum standards and for this reason constitute a hazard.

Personal Hygiene, Sanitation and Drainage

68. The bathroom to the external flat is extremely small and poorly laid out and, in our judgement, fails to provide adequately for a personal space to wash, brush teeth, shave, dry dress and undress. We also note that the handwashing basin is located behind the toilet and any toilet user will have to reach over the toilet to wash hands which is inappropriate and unhygienic as they are less likely to want to wash hands.

Accordingly, we agree with the Respondent’s HHSRS assessment in relation to this aspect of the appeal.

Fire

69. We agree with the Respondent that the lack of an appropriate mains wired fire detection system and alarm system is necessary for reasons of safety in the external flat and that a battery-operated system is inadequate for safe fire detection. The risk of the battery running out and not being replaced makes a mains wired system appropriate.

The Grounds of Appeal

70. It is important to point out that the safety requirements are not generally tenant specific. It may well be that all tenants know each other and may well frequent each apartment on a friendly basis but that may not always be the case and in a property of this nature, tenants come and go; they may be friendly at one point but then fall out at another point and such- like. It is therefore important to assess safety standards in an objective manner with a mind to the fact that the two flats are intended to be occupied by households separate to the three bedrooms. The tenants will all therefore constitute separate households and not one cohesive unit which might be formed from a family occupying the property as a whole (including the two flats).

71. The argument by the Appellant therefore that the tenants all know each other and are satisfied with the layout and provision in the property has no relevance to our assessment of safety and health.

72. Further, [NAME] [NAME] has dealt with all of the points raised by [NAME] in relation to the issue of cohesiveness in her witness statement at paragraphs 73 through to 77 and we cannot fault her response and views. In essence the points she makes are all simply correct.

Conclusions 73. For the above reasons all grounds of appeal fail. The Tribunal has confirmed the improvement notice and the various prohibition notices

15

and accordingly it is also appropriate for the Appellant to pay the charges levied under section 50 of the 2004 Act.

74. We do not accept any ground of appeal has any merit and we have therefore discounted them.

75. Any questions as to how the Appellant is to comply with the terms of the Prohibition and Enforcement notices is a matter between the Appellant and Respondent as the powers of the Tribunal are limited to either confirming, quashing or varying the various notices.

Signed Dated 20 March 2024 Phillip Barber, Judge of the First-tier Tribunal