Landlord Fined £10,000 for Electrical Safety Breaches

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/33UE/HNA/2024/0613 Property : 13 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Appellant : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL], lay representative Respondent : [redacted] Council Representative : Mr [COUNSEL], counsel Type of [NAME] : Appeal under reg.7 and sch.2 para.5 of the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 Tribunal members : First-tier Tribunal Judge K [NAME] : Remote hearing by CVP Date of decision : 12 August 2025

DECISION

2 Decision of the tribunal (1) The tribunal confirms the two financial penalties issued by the Respondent on 30 May 2024 in the sum of £5000 each. The [NAME]

1. By an [NAME] dated 26 June 2024, the Appellant appeals, under regulation 7 and paragraph 5 of schedule 2 of the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 (“the Regulations”) two financial penalties issued by the Respondent on 30 May 2024 in the sum of £5000 each for breaches of its duty under regulation 3(4) of the Regulations.

2. The penalties relate to Room 3 and [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]. The background 3. The subject property at [ADDRESS] is a three-storey converted House in Multiple Occupation, containing seven letting rooms. Neither party requested an inspection of the property and the tribunal did not consider that an inspection was necessary nor proportionate to the issues in dispute.

4. The background to this appeal is set out in the 123-page Appellant’s bundle, the 372-page Respondent’s bundle and the Respondent’s brief response of 7 pages. We have considered these documents in detail.

5. The following are the material background points: a. The registered freehold owner of the property under title number NK184542 is [APPELLANT]. b. The Appellant holds a lease of the property under which it is responsible for, amongst other things, repair and electrical certification, and is entitled to sublet the property or any part of it. c. The Appellant operates the property as a HMO. In the course of considering an [NAME] by the Appellant for the renewal of the property’s HMO licence, on 2 November 2023 the Respondent’s [RESPONDENT], a Housing Standards Compliance Officer, advised the Appellant that the then existing electrical installation certificate report for the property was no longer valid due to a change in the applicable law in April 2021. She asked the Appellant to provide a new certificate.

3 d. On 26 November 2023, the Appellant duly obtained a new electrical installation certificate after an inspection was completed by a company known as [COMPANY]. The overall assessment of the electrical installations at the property was said to be unsatisfactory. e. This report was not immediately sent to the Respondent. On 8 January 2024, Ms [APPELLANT] asked the Appellant for an update about when she might receive the new electrical installation condition report. f. On 9 January 2024, the Appellant sent the unsatisfactory report to Ms [APPELLANT]. Ms [APPELLANT] asked for a copy of the satisfactory report which should have followed the November report once remedial works were undertaken. The Appellant did not reply. g. On 16 January 2024 Ms [APPELLANT] asked for a response to her earlier email and a copy of the satisfactory report. h. On 21 January 2024, the Appellant instructed [APPELLANT] to carry out electrical works at the property and then to re-test the electrical installations, which it duly did. i. The electrical installation condition report issued on that day by [COMPANY] found the overall assessment of the electrical installations to be satisfactory. j. On 29 January 2024, the Appellant sent the 21 January 2024 report to the Respondent. k. On 4 April 2024, the Respondent served a notice of its intention to impose financial penalties on the Appellant. l. On 30 May 2024 the Respondent served two final penalty notices in the sum of £5000 each in respect of its breach of regulation 3(4) of the Regulations. The hearing 6. At the hearing, the Appellant was represented by Mr [COUNSEL], a lay representative. The Respondent was represented by Mr [COUNSEL], counsel. We heard oral evidence from Ms [COUNSEL], who confirmed the content of her witness statement dated 1 April 2025. We also heard oral evidence from Mr [RESPONDENT], a Housing Standards Manager employed by the Respondent, who confirmed the content of his witness statement also dated 1 April 2025. Both witnesses were cross examined by Mr [NAME]. No written or oral witness evidence was adduced by the Appellant. Both representatives made submissions. We reserved our decision. The issues 7. The representatives agreed at the outset of the hearing that the following issues were in dispute:

4

a. Whether the Appellant was in breach of duty under regulation 3(4) as asserted by the Respondent.

b. Whether the financial penalty imposed by the Respondent should be confirmed, quashed, or varied.

8. Having heard evidence and submissions from the parties and considered all of the documents provided, we make the following determinations. Legal framework 9. The material provisions of the Regulations are as follows: a. By regulation 3(1)(a), a private landlord who grants or intends to grant a specified tenancy must … ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises are occupied under a specified tenancy. b. By regulation 3(3)(a), following an inspection of the electrical installations, the landlord must obtain a report of the inspection giving the results. c. By regulation 3(4) “where a report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) indicates that a private landlord is or is potentially in breach of the duty under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and the report requires the private landlord to undertake further investigative or remedial work, the private landlord must ensure that further investigative or remedial work is carried out by a qualified person within— (a) 28 days; or (b) the period specified in the report if less than 28 days, starting with the date of the inspection and testing” d. By regulation 2 "qualified person" means a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards”

e. By regulation 7, “where a local housing authority is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that a private landlord has breached a duty under regulation 3, the authority may impose a financial penalty (or more than one penalty in the event of a continuing failure) in respect of the breach”.

5

f. By paragraph 5 of schedule 2, “A private landlord on whom a final notice is served may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against— (a) the decision to impose the penalty; or (b) the amount of the penalty.

…

On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal may confirm, quash or vary the final notice”. The tribunal’s decision Was the Appellant in breach of duty under regulation 3(4)? 10. It is for the Respondent to prove that the Appellant was in breach of the Regulations as alleged. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.

11. We start by considering the evidence of Ms [NAME] and Mr [NAME]. We found them both to be helpful and credible witnesses. Their evidence was given in a clear and straightforward manner and it was clear to us that they had detailed knowledge of this property and the circumstances that gave rise to the imposition of the financial penalties in this case. We accept their evidence.

12. We have also considered the electrical installation condition report dated 26 November 2023 completed by [NAME] of [COMPANY]. We find that this report: a. relates to the property. b. identifies one F1 code observation relating to the sockets circuit and the light circuit. An F1 code means that further investigation is required. c. identifies three [NAME] codes relating to the overcurrent protective device, an exposed cable, and thermal damage to sockets. A [NAME] code means that the installation is potentially dangerous and that urgent remedial action is required.

13. The Appellant’s case is set out in the skeleton argument prepared by Mr [NAME] and in the representations at pages 91 – 100 and 112 – 114 of the Appellant’s bundle. In summary, the Appellant says that:

6 a. the 26 November 2023 report was wrong and was later contradicted in the report of 21 January 2024. b. following the report of 26 November 2023, further investigative work was undertaken by the Appellant within the 28 day period required by the Regulations, such that there was no breach.

14. No oral evidence was called in support of the Appellant’s case. We read the letter of [APPELLANT] [NAME] dated 20 June 2024 in which Mr [NAME] states that he did not deem the electrical installations at the property unsatisfactory because of the F1 and [NAME] issues that he identified in his report but because he considered that the design of the circuitry at the property was not of the same standard as that at other properties he had inspected previously. He considered that the property needed to be rewired. As Mr [NAME] was not called to give evidence and to be cross- examined, we give his letter very little weight.

15. In any event, even if we were to take Mr [NAME] evidence at its highest, it seems to us that his subjective reasoning for certifying the installations as unsatisfactory is not determinative of the issues that we have to decide – the important point in our judgment is the fact that he identified F1 and [NAME] issues at the property, which meant that further investigation and urgent remedial action was required. These findings, from which Mr [NAME] does not resile in his letter, in our judgment triggered the Appellant’s duty under regulation 3(4) to ensure that further investigative or remedial work was carried out by a qualified person within 28 days.

16. We do not consider that the report of 23 January 2024 carried out by [APPELLANT] undermines the report of 26 November 2023 as the Appellant asserts. As set out above, Mr [APPELLANT] did not resile from his opinion that F1 and [NAME] issues were present at the property when he inspected it in November 2023. Secondly, on the Appellant’s own case, the electrician from [APPELLANT] carried out works to the electrical installations before completing the inspection and report. There was no documentary evidence before us about what works were carried out by the electrician, but Mr [NAME] accepted in his submissions that the electrician would have addressed the [NAME] matters raised in the November 2023 inspection report, otherwise the installation would not have been deemed satisfactory.

17. We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt having considered the Appellant’s points and the report itself that the report of 26 November 2023: a. indicated that the Appellant was in breach or potentially in breach of the duty to ensure that the electrical safety standards are met at the property.

7 b. required the Appellant to undertake further investigative work. c. required the Appellant to undertake remedial work.

18.

Accordingly, on 26 November 2023, the Appellant’s duties under regulation 3(4) of the Regulations were triggered.

19. The next question is whether any steps taken by the Appellant after receipt of the report were sufficient to discharge the duty within the 28 day period set down by the Regulations.

20. The Appellant included a chronology of relevant events in its bundle, together with a letter from [NAME] dated 20 June 2024 and extracts of Whatsapp messages and a diary entry from 30 November 2023. Again, no oral evidence was called by the Appellant and Mr [APPELLANT] did not attend to be cross-examined. In those circumstances, we give the chronology and letter very little weight, particularly given the apparent discrepancy between the two documents. The chronology states that the Appellant sent Mr [APPELLANT] the report of 26 November 2023 but that he did not reply. Mr [NAME] says in his letter, however, that he met with the Appellant’s director, [APPELLANT], on 30 November 2023 to read the certificate and discuss what could be done and that he “performed investigative work inspecting the property and double checking the wiring”.

21. In any event, even taking the chronology, letter and other evidence referred to above at its highest, in our judgment it does not establish that the Appellant discharged its duty under regulation 3(4) within 28 days of 26 November 2023. Even if Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] met to discuss the certificate on 30 November 2023 and carried out an inspection or investigations at the property, that would not in our judgment have discharged the duty owed by the Appellant arising from the report of 26 November 2023 for the following reasons.

22. First, there is no evidence that either Mr [NAME] or Mr [NAME] is a “qualified person” for the purposes of the Regulations. The fact that they previously engaged external contractors to complete their electrical installation condition reports would in our judgment indicate that they are not qualified persons.

23. Secondly, the report of 26 November 2023 identified three [NAME] issues, each requiring urgent remedial action. There is no suggestion that any works were carried out to remedy these issues until January 2024 when the second electrical installation report was commissioned. This was after the 28 day deadline from 26 November 2023 had expired.

24. Thirdly, the description of the “investigative work” carried out by Mr [NAME] in our judgment lacks sufficient detail. There is no evidence that

8 Mr [NAME] investigated the specific issue with the sockets circuit and the light circuit identified in the report of 26 November 2023, nor about the results and conclusions of any investigation. It is not enough, in our judgment, for the landlord to carry out general investigative work – the investigations must be directed to the matters identified in the report.

25. Having carefully considered the evidence referred to above and for the reasons that we have set out, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant did not ensure that further investigative or remedial work was carried out by a qualified person within 28 days of the 26 November 2023 inspection report.

Accordingly, we are satisfied that the Appellant was in breach of the Regulations as the Respondent asserts.

26. We should say that we have also considered the Appellant’s assertions that the Respondent contributed to any breach as it did not identify the need for a new electrical installation condition report to be provided when the Appellant initially sent its report to the Respondent in February 2023 as part of the HMO licence [NAME]. We do not agree that these matters are relevant to the issues in dispute. The point is that the Appellant did not act as it ought to have done when it received the new electrical installation condition report of 26 November 2023. Blame for this cannot in our judgment be laid at the Respondent’s door. Should the financial penalty be varied? 27. The Appellant asserts that the penalty imposed was excessive and that either no penalty should have been imposed and/or that the penalty should be reduced because: a. This was a first offence and the Appellant had a long history of compliance and cooperation with the Respondent. b. Action was taken immediately to deal with the issues raised by the Respondent. c. This was in effect a single breach of the Regulations but two penalties have been levied.

28. We bear in mind the decision in [NAME] v Marshall [2020] UKUT 35 (LC) and give weight to the decision under appeal.

29. Though this was the Appellant's first offence, we are satisfied that the Respondent was entitled to impose a penalty in the circumstances. It was not suggested that the Respondent’s policy requires it to attempt to resolve the matter informally before a penalty is issued. Moreover, despite [NAME]’s assertions, the Appellant was not in our judgment wholly cooperative with the Respondent following 2 November 2023 when Ms [RESPONDENT] informed it that a valid electrical installation condition

9 report was required. The report of 26 November 2023 was not sent to Ms [NAME] until 9 January 2024, after she had asked for it to be sent to her and despite the Appellant’s assurance given on 7 November 2023 that it would send the certificate to her as soon as it was issued. Ms [NAME] had to chase again for the inspection report on 16 January 2024 as the Appellant had failed to respond to her email of 9 January 2024.

30. For the same reasons, we do not agree with Mr [NAME] that action to deal with the issues raised by the Respondent in November 2023 was taken immediately by the Appellant. As set out above, in fact it appears that, even taking the Appellant’s evidence at its highest, it took very few steps to remedy the matters raised in the report of 26 November 2023, and the steps that were taken were not adequately communicated to the Respondent.

31. Further, the Respondent did not take enforcement action against the Appellant in respect of the other breaches of the Regulations identified in its letter of 4 April 2024. We have considered and accept the evidence given by Mr [NAME] at paragraph 19 of his witness statement about his decision to impose a penalty in the circumstances of this case, which was not challenged in cross-examination. In our judgment, the Respondent took a proportionate approach in respect of enforcement in this case.

32. We are satisfied, having considered the evidence of Ms [RESPONDENT] and Mr [APPELLANT], that the Respondent has already given the Appellant credit, in determining the level of the fine, for its historic compliance and cooperation with the Respondent and its actions in resolving the issue once it was identified. It has expressly considered the Appellant’s “track record” when applying its financial penalties policy and correctly assessed it as “none or negligible”. Likewise, the Respondent also considered the harm associated with the breach and has in our judgment accurately assessed the harm at level 1, that is to say, there is no particular risk of harm associated with the condition or management of the property.

33. As to the assertion that the Appellant has been penalised twice for essentially the same breach, neither representative addressed us at any length on this point. There is no dispute that the occupiers of Room 3 and Room 7 occupy under separate specified tenancies. We are satisfied that there has been more than one breach of the Regulations as the duty under regulation 3(4) is linked to the requirement to obtain a report under regulation (3)(3)(a), which itself is linked to regulation 3(1)(b) and (c), which set out the landlord’s electrical safety obligations in relation to a specified tenancy. We have considered and accept what Mr [NAME] says at paragraph 21 of his witness statement, namely that though seven breaches of regulation 3(4) were identified, the Respondent elected only to take enforcement action in respect of two breaches, in accordance with its policy. Again, we are satisfied that the Respondent’s approach was proportionate and should be upheld.

10 34. For all these reasons, we confirm the two financial penalties issued by the Respondent on 30 May 2024 in the sum of £5000 each. Name: First-tier Tribunal Judge Neave Date: 12 August 2025

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).