VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Agrees to Provide Reports on Heating and Insulation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The tenant agreed to provide reports on heating and cavity wall insulation to comply with improvement notices issued by the local authority. This agreement was made during a hearing at the First-tier Tribunal.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their property meet certain health and safety standards as outlined by local authorities.

Topics

tenancy conditionshealth and safety compliance

📖 Technical summary

The claimant agreed to provide reports on heating and cavity wall insulation by specified deadlines.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tenant agreed to provide a report from a suitably qualified heating engineer and a surveyor to assess the viability of cavity wall insulation, both by specified deadlines, to comply with improvement notices issued by the local authority.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CHI/43UL/HIN/2022/0032

Property : 16 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL] of Counsel Respondent : [redacted] Representative : Ms [COUNSEL] of Counsel

Type of Application : Appeal against Improvement Notice Tribunal : Judge F J Silverman MA [NAME]

of Consideration : 02 May 2023 Date of Decision : 02 May 2023

2

DECISION AND ORDER

1 The hearing of this matter took place before a Tribunal sitting in Havant on 02 May 2023 at which the Applicant was represented by Mr [COUNSEL] of Counsel and the Respondent by Ms [COUNSEL] of Counsel. 2 Following discussions the parties reached an agreement as set out in the schedule attached. 3 The Tribunal therefore makes an Order in the terms attached.

Judge F J Silverman as Chairman Date 02 May 2023

CASE: CHI/43UL/HIN/2022/0032 IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CHAMBER SITTING AT THE HAVANT JUSTICE CENTRE

IN THE MATTER OF NUMBER 16 THE STREET, WRECCLESHAM, FARMHAM, SURREY, [POSTCODE]

B E T W E E N :-

[APPELLANT]

APPLICANT

-v-

WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL RESPONDENT

______________________________

ORDER

_______________________________

ON THE 2ND MAY 2023 BEFORE TRIBUNAL JUDGE (

)

UPON HEARING FROM COUNSEL [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT AND [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT COUNCIL

PREAMBLE:

A. By 2 June 2023, Mr [APPELLANT] will provide the Council with a report (“Heating Report”) from a suitably qualified “Gas Safe” heating engineer at his own cost, to provide a report on an affordable, thermostatically controlled heating system whether that is gas or electrical operated to maintain minimum internal temperatures of 21 degrees in the living room, 18 degrees in the bedroom and 22 degrees in the bathroom (when the external temperature is -1 degrees) with a view to carrying out those works before 2 September 2023.

B. By 2 June 2023, Mr [APPELLANT] will provide the Council with a report from a suitably qualified expert at his own cost (preferably from [NAME]) to survey the Property and assess the viability of cavity wall insulation.

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT:

1. The appeal against the Section 12 Notice (Category 2 hazards) dated 1 November 2022 is withdrawn so that it takes effect immediately and the timeframe for compliance is one month, that being 2 June 2023.

2. The Section 11 Notice (Category 1 hazards) dated 1 November 2022 is varied so that compliance is required by 2 September 2023.

Dated this 2nd day of May 2023.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

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 parties reached an agreement on the issues presented to the tribunal.
  • The appeal against the Section 12 Notice regarding Category 2 hazards was withdrawn.
  • The Section 11 Notice concerning Category 1 hazards was modified to extend the compliance deadline.
  • The tenant agreed to provide a report from a Gas Safe heating engineer by 2 June 2023.
  • The tenant agreed to provide a report from an expert to assess the viability of cavity wall insulation by 2 June 2023.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tenant agreed to provide reports on heating and cavity wall insulation to comply with improvement notices.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the local authority were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court accepted the agreement between the tenant and the local authority because it addressed the issues raised in the improvement notices.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the agreement between the tenant and the local authority to address the improvement notices.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, as they agreed to the terms set by the local authority.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider agreeing to provide necessary reports to address any improvement notices issued by the local authority.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence or documents that mattered were the improvement notices issued by the local authority.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court if there are grounds for appeal.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving improvement notices.

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.