Tribunal Extends Deadline for Remedial Works Due to Unresolved Structural Issues

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AG/HIN/2025/0625 Property : 53 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Limited Representative : [COUNSEL] [NAME], instructed by [COUNSEL] [COMPANY] Respondent : [redacted] Representative : [COUNSEL] of Counsel Type of [NAME] :

Appeal against an improvement notice under paragraphs 10-12 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2004 Tribunal Members :

Judge P [NAME] [NAME] of hearing : 2 February 2026 Date of Decision : 3 February 2026

DECISION

Description of hearing

The hearing was a face-to-face hearing.

2 Decision of the tribunal The improvement notice which is the subject matter of this appeal is varied so that paragraph 5 of the notice now reads as follows: “Under Section 11(2) and 12(2) of the Housing Act 2004 the Council requires you to carry out the remedial works specified in SCHEDULE 2 to this Notice and to begin them not later than 28 February 2026 and to complete them by 1 November 2027.” Introduction and factual background 1. The Applicant has appealed against the terms of an improvement notice (“the Improvement Notice”) dated 6 February 2025 served on it in relation to the Property, the appeal being made pursuant to paragraphs 10-12 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”). The Improvement Notice required the Applicant to carry out certain specified works, to commence the works by 6 April 2025, and then to complete the works within 18 months after the deadline for commencement of the works (i.e. by 5 October 2026).

2. The Improvement Notice identifies hazards of (1) damp and mould, (2) fire and (3) structural collapse and falling elements, and it requires the Applicant to undertake works to the Property to address the same.

3. The Applicant is the freehold owner of the Property, which is a four- storey building containing 7 separate flats. The building was constructed in 2018 by a contractor appointed by the Applicant and it has a timber frame with brickwork on the exterior. Shortly after construction occupants complained of cracking, water ingress and other defects and this prompted a series of investigations.

4. Following some initial investigations the Applicant appointed [APPELLANT] of [APPELLANT] to inspect the Property. In his first report dated 14 March 2022. Mr [NAME] concluded that there were significant defects in the Property and that, depending on the condition of the structure, demolition and reconstruction might be required. That conclusion was expressed to be provisional, pending further investigation. The contractor itself could no longer, it seems, be pursued for the remedying of any defects. The Property’s building warranty [NAME], [COMPANY] (the “[NAME]”) accepts that it is liable to contribute to any repair or rebuild works under an indemnity policy, although the extent of indemnity is disputed.

5. The [NAME] instructed its own expert Mr [NAME] [NAME], and his initial report is dated 28 April 2022. Mr [NAME] broadly agreed as to the existence of defects but expressed the view that repair

3 was feasible. Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] have both prepared subsequent reports and have also prepared a joint statement. The joint statement itself records a fundamental disagreement as to whether repair is feasible at all, but both experts accept that the disagreement cannot be resolved without further invasive investigations.

6. The Improvement Notice relies on Mr [NAME] 2022 report both as to the existence of hazards and the remedial approach, although it also contemplates further investigation before definitive conclusions can be reached. For the purpose of these proceedings Mr [NAME] has prepared a further report dated 15 September 2025 in which he states that he remains unclear as the nature of the remedial works required, that therefore further invasive investigations are required.

7. The Applicant issued a claim in the High Court seeking declaratory relief as to the extent of the [NAME]’s liability. The issue was whether the total indemnity limit under the policy was £1.5 million in total or £1.5 million per flat. Following a hearing before [NAME] (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), the court accepted the [NAME]’s position – that it was £1.5 million in total – by a reserved judgment handed down on 16 January 2026. The Applicant states that it intends to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal. Following the insurance judgment, the Applicant and Respondent then reviewed the position and agreed that further invasive investigations and updated expert evidence would be required before the disputed issues of scope and timetable could be resolved.

8. The Applicant accepts that the Property suffers from Category 1 and Category 2 hazards arising from defective workmanship in its construction. The dispute is therefore not as to whether intervention is required in order to deal with the hazards. Rather, the dispute is about the nature, scope and sequencing of any remedial works and the realistic timescale for their completion. Request for adjournment 9. On 19 January 2026 the Applicant’s solicitors wrote to the tribunal [NAME] an [NAME] on behalf of both parties for an adjournment. That request was refused on 20 January 2026 by Judge Martynski. That [NAME] was then renewed by way of skeleton argument dated 30 January 2026 by [NAME], again on behalf of both parties. It was recognised in that skeleton argument that the parties would need to attend the final hearing and be ready to proceed with the case at that hearing in the event that the adjournment request was refused again.

10. In its skeleton argument the Applicant does not dispute that the tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the appeal on the date set for the final hearing. Rather, its submission is that the tribunal might consider

4 it consistent with fairness and effective case management to adjourn briefly so that the issues it is required to determine can be resolved on a stable and properly informed evidential basis. The only report relied upon by both parties is Mr [NAME] further report dated 15 September 2025, which concludes that further investigations are required before reliable evidence can be given on the outstanding issues. In those circumstances, the Applicant submits that the tribunal should consider whether determining the appeal now would require it to proceed on an incomplete evidential footing.

11. If the tribunal does not grant the adjournment, then in the alternative the Applicant submits that the Improvement Notice should be varied so as to amend the required date of commencement of the works to 31 March 2026 and the deadline for completion to 31 August 2027. Discussion at hearing 12. At the hearing Mr [APPELLANT] for the Applicant said that the Respondent had now changed its position and that it was no longer supporting the request for an adjournment. Instead, as confirmed by Mr [RESPONDENT], the Respondent was proposing a variation of the Improvement Notice by moving the deadline for completion of the works to 31 August 2027 as per the Applicant’s fallback position as set out in its skeleton argument. At that point Mr [NAME] said that the reference in the skeleton argument to 31 August 2027 was an error as it did not allow time for preliminary investigative works. The Applicant’s position was now that if an adjournment was not agreed by the tribunal the deadline for completion of the works should be 1 November 2027.

13. Mr [NAME] noted the concern expressed by the tribunal in this matter as to the delay in this matter and the late request for an adjournment. He said that the Applicant had tried to work with the [NAME] in relation to this matter but that this had not led to progress.

14. Mr [RESPONDENT] said that the Respondent accepted that some investigative works were needed. The Respondent’s position, as understood by the tribunal, was that the Improvement Notice was not so prescriptive as regards how to deal with the relevant hazards that it could not serve as a framework for appropriate investigative works followed by the carrying out of the necessary works and therefore there was no need to adjourn the hearing. However, the Respondent accepted that the Applicant needed more time within which properly to investigate and then to carry out the works. He noted Mr [NAME] comment that the new deadline of 31 August 2027 had been proposed by the Applicant in error, but Mr [APPELLANT] instructions remained that the deadline should be 31 August 2027.

5 Relevant statutory provisions 15. Housing Act 2004 Schedule 1, Part 3 10. (1) The person on whom an improvement notice is served may appeal to the appropriate tribunal against the notice. 15.

(1) This paragraph applies to an appeal to the appropriate tribunal under paragraph 10. (2) The appeal – (a) is to be by way of a re-hearing, but (b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority were unaware. (3) The tribunal may by order confirm, quash or vary the improvement notice. Tribunal’s analysis 16. Under paragraph 15(2) of Schedule 1 to the 2004 Act, this appeal is a re-hearing of the Respondent’s decision but may be determined having regard to matters of which the Respondent was unaware.

17. We have considered the wording of the Improvement Notice, the parties’ written and oral submissions and the relevant expert reports, albeit noting the agreement between the parties as to the existence of the hazards.

18. At the hearing there was some discussion as to the wording of the Improvement Notice in the context of the [NAME] for an adjournment. The tribunal notes that the second paragraph of Schedule 2 to the Improvement Notice requires the Applicant to “Engage a [NAME] to produce a written report identifying appropriate works, materials and method statement to bring the building to compliance with the requirements of the Building Regulations”. The third paragraph then requires the Applicant to: “Where it is proposed not to carry out works to remedy items noted in Section G, provide evidence from a [NAME] that these works are not necessary, and that matters identified in Section G do not have a negative impact on the building’s structural stability, damp and fire safety and will not lead to future deterioration

6 developing more quickly than a typical timber framed building of equivalent type”. In addition, the section of Schedule 2 headed “Foundation and Timber Frame” begins “[NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] engineers to provide evidence as to the adequacy of the existing foundations and the existing timber frame …”.

19. In the light of the above extracts from the Improvement Notice we do not consider that the Applicant is simply being given a list of works that it must carry out regardless of whether any further investigations might indicate that an alternative method of dealing with the hazards would be more effective or more appropriate. Furthermore, the Improvement Notice as it stands actually encourages the carrying out of further investigations with a view to those investigations informing the most appropriate approach to tackling the undisputed hazards.

20. An adjournment would indeed give the Applicant more time to gather further information as to how best to tackle the hazards, but we do not accept that it is either necessary or appropriate to grant an adjournment in these circumstances. An adjournment would involve a waste of a hearing day, it being too late to allocate the hearing date to another case, and it would also arguably involve a waste of the Respondent’s resources. However, in any event, given that the Improvement Notice is not prescriptive as to what works are required, we do not accept that it is necessary to adjourn. Instead, the Applicant needs to start the process of investigating what works it would be prudent to specify and then – subject to agreement with the Respondent – carrying out the necessary works.

21. However, there is another point, namely that the timescale for commencement and completion of the works needs to be realistic. Both parties confirmed at the hearing that they were satisfied that the deadline for commencement included investigative works, in other words that the Improvement Notice was not anticipating the need for actual works to remedy hazards to begin by that date. Both parties were also content with a revised commencement date of 28 February 2026, and as this is only 26 days after the date of the final hearing we agree that this is acceptable.

22. As regards the deadline for completion of the works, Mr [NAME] explained at the hearing that in his expert opinion 18 months was a reasonable timescale to allow for the works but that before the works could start the Applicant would first need – in his view – 3 months within which to complete further invasive inspections to ascertain the extent of wet rot affecting the building’s timber frame, prepare a specification and any necessary drawings for remedial works, obtain competitive tenders and appoint a suitable building contractor to undertake the works. This would mean that a realistic deadline, in his view, would be the beginning of November 2027.

7 23. The Respondent’s position at the hearing was that the deadline for completion should be 31 August 2027, which is not so different from a deadline of early November 2027. It was put to Mr [RESPONDENT] that the Respondent did not have its own expert to rely on in this regard and that the Respondent was not in a position to argue authoritatively that early November 2027 was an unreasonably long deadline.

24. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence before us, we are satisfied that it would be appropriate to vary the deadline for completion of the works to 1 November 2027. Cost applications 25. No cost applications have been made.

Name: Judge P [NAME]: 3 February 2026

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

A. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] dealing with the case.

B. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

C. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

D. 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.