Tribunal Rules Council Unreasonable for Not Revoking Improvement Notice

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : BIR/31UC/HIN/2025/0001

Subject Property : [ADDRESS]

[POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent

: [redacted]

([NAME]

[NAME]: 159961)

Type of Application : Application under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2004 to appeal against an improvement notice Application for costs under rule 13 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013

Tribunal Member : Deputy Regional Judge Gravells

Date of Decision : 26 May 2026

_____________________________________

DECISION ON COSTS APPLICATION _________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Preliminary 1 This is the Tribunal’s Decision on an application by the Applicant for an order for costs under rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 (‘the 2013 Rules’) following the service and subsequent revocation of an improvement notice by the Respondent. Factual background 2 Although there is some disagreement between the parties as to the factual background, the Tribunal is satisfied that the following account reflects the essential chronology. 3 On 11 December 2024 [NAME], Housing Standards Officer in the [NAME] at the Respondent council, was alerted to a water leakage through the ceiling of the subject property into the hallway cupboard (which houses the fuse board) and the lights and the hard-wired smoke alarm in the lounge ceiling. The tenant was advised not to use the [NAME] in the property until they were checked because of the risk of electrical shock and fire. Ms [APPELLANT] was told that the Applicant, the landlord of the property, had been contacted and that a contractor was due to attend the property, 4 On 12 December 2024 Ms [APPELLANT] visited the property and the tenant confirmed that a contractor had attended the flat above the subject property and had identified the source of the leak. It is not clear whether the contractor repaired the leak immediately but Ms [NAME] noted that the walls and ceiling in the hallway cupboard were wet and that water had leaked on to the fuse box. Water was also visible in the lounge dripping through light fittings and around the hard-wired fire alarm. 5 Ms [APPELLANT] emailed the Applicant and requested that the [NAME] were checked as a matter of urgency to ensure that they were safe to use. The Applicant responded but, according to Ms [APPELLANT], not to confirm that the [NAME] would be checked but rather to take issue with the Respondent for getting involved in the matter. 6 On 13 December 2024 (a Friday) Ms [APPELLANT] again emailed the Applicant to request that the [NAME] be checked; but she received no response. 7 On 16 December 2024 Ms [APPELLANT] repeated her request that the Applicant arrange for an electricity safety check. She also contacted the [NAME] to alert them to a potential fire risk. 8 On 17 December 2024 the Applicant emailed Ms [APPELLANT] stating that an appointment for an electrical check had been made. Ms [APPELLANT] requested the Applicant to provide an updated EICR and stated that she would visit the subject property on 19 December 2024 and that, if no EICR were provided, she would serve an improvement notice. 9 On 18 December 2024 the Applicant emailed Ms [APPELLANT] stating that the electrician had been unable to gain access to the subject property because the tenant was not in. However, the tenant confirmed that they had been notified that the electrician would be attending the property, that someone was at the property all day but that no electrician had called.

10 On 20 December 2024 no EICR had been provided and, given the perceived urgency and delay, an improvement notice was served by email. The notice was issued under section 11 of the Housing Act 2004 (‘the 2004 Act’) and identified two Category 1 Hazards - Electrocution and Fire. It required the Applicant to employ a suitably qualified electrician (i) to check the electrical installation following the leak through the ceiling from the upstairs flat into light fittings in the lounge and the fuseboard in the hallway cupboard, (ii) to take any remedial action required to make the system safe and (iii) to provide an updated EICR confirming the safety of the electrical installation. 11 Later that day the Applicant emailed Ms [APPELLANT] stating that the electrician had been unable to attend on 19 December 2024 but that he had told the Applicant that the [NAME] should be safe following the leak as nothing had tripped out. The Applicant had passed that message to the tenant. 12 On 23 December 2024 the Applicant confirmed that the electrician had attended the subject property. 13 On 24 December 2024 the Applicant provided an updated EICR. 14 On 3 January 2025 and again on 7 January 2026 the Applicant requested the Respondent to withdraw the improvement notice but she received no response. 15 On 8 January 2025 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 204 (‘the 2004 Act’) to appeal against the improvement notice. 16 On 20 March 2025 the Tribunal issued Directions for the determination of the application. 17 On 1 April 2025 the Respondent issued a Notice of Revocation of the improvement notice, stating that the Respondent was satisfied that the requirements of the improvement notice had been complied with. On the same date Ms [RESPONDENT] emailed the Tribunal to confirm that the Respondent consented to the withdrawal of the Applicant’s appeal against the improvement notice ‘as the Applicant has complied with the conditions of the improvement notice’. 18 On 17 June 2025 the Tribunal emailed the parties stating that, if the Applicant wished to make application for an order for costs, the Applicant should apply for the withdrawal of the proceedings and at the same time file with the Tribunal and serve on the Respondent a Statement of Costs together with written reasons setting the basis on which an order for costs was sought under rule 13 of the 2013 Rules. 19 On 17 December 2025 the Applicant emailed the Tribunal to confirm that it was happy to withdraw the application and attached an application for costs. 20 On 4 February 2026 the Applicant formally applied to the Tribunal for consent to withdraw the application under rule 22 of the 2013 Rules. 21 On 12 February 2026 the Tribunal formally consented with the withdrawal of the application. On the same date the Tribunal directed the Respondent to provide a response to the Applicant’s costs application.

Costs application 22 The Applicant applied under rule 13(1)(b) of the 2013 Rules for an order for costs on the ground that the Respondent has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings in a residential property case. The schedule of costs totalled £260.00, comprising (i) preparation of appeal and Tribunal documents, review of Respondent’s correspondence and evidence and ‘internal management time’ (a total of three hours charged at an hourly rate of £50.00 (£150.00)) and (ii) the Tribunal application fee (£110.00).

Representations of the parties 23 The Applicant submitted – (i) that there were no unresolved electrical issues and no evidence of an electrical hazard at the time enforcement action was taken; (ii) that the Applicant kept the Respondent officer fully informed of ongoing efforts to obtain access for the electrical checks requested, including the tenant’s failure to provide access and subsequent appointments arranged once access could be secured; and that any delay was outside the Applicant’s control; (iii) that the improvement notice was issued on the same day that the electrical works were completed, the Council had been informed of this; and that serving the notice in these circumstances was unreasonable and served no legitimate regulatory purpose; (iv) that, despite confirmation that all alleged issues had been resolved, the Respondent refused to withdraw the improvement notice until 1 April 2025; and that during that period the Respondent maintained enforcement action without justification, forcing the Applicant to incur avoidable Tribunal costs. 24 The Respondent submitted – (i) that the Respondent required electrical checks to be carried out to ensure that the property was safe for tenants; and that the Applicant had no way of knowing for certain that the property was safe following the leak without checks being carried out; (ii) that the tenant confirmed that there was someone in the property at all times on the date that the Applicant claims that the electrician attended and was unable to gain access; that, although the Applicant updated the Respondent on progress with electrical checks, given the circumstances and urgency to establish electrical safety, it was reasonable to expect that the Applicant should have made other emergency arrangements to ensure that checks were carried out as soon as possible; that the [NAME] were left unchecked for eight days – ample time to arrange an emergency electrician to attend and confirm safety; and that, as no such action took place, and because of the unnecessary delay, it was felt reasonable to serve an Improvement Notice; (iii) that the Applicant’s assertion that the improvement notice was issued on the same day as the electrical works were completed is factually incorrect - the improvement notice was served on 20 December 2024 and it was

not until 23 December 2024 that the Respondent received confirmation that the required works had been carried out; (iv) that, while the Applicant did ask for the improvement notice to be withdrawn, Ms [APPELLANT] understanding of this request was that the Applicant wanted the notice to be cancelled altogether as it had been issued in error. Discussion 25 Rule 13 of the 2013 Rules provides (so far as relevant) – (1) … the Tribunal may make an order in respect of costs only— … (b) if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings; … (2) The Tribunal may make an order requiring a party to reimburse to any other party the whole or part of the amount of any fee paid by the other party which has not been remitted by the Lord Chancellor. 26 In the view of the Tribunal, the Applicant’s application for costs is in part misconceived. Rule 13 requires a finding that the Respondent has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings. In the present case the relevant proceedings are the Applicant’s application to appeal against the improvement notice, which was issued on 8 January 2025. Yet the first three submissions of the Applicant relate to the Respondent’s actions before those proceedings were commenced. It follows that the actions of the Respondent before 8 January 2025 cannot be actions (whether reasonable or unreasonable) in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings. In any event, in the circumstances the Tribunal finds that during the period 11 December to 20 December 2024 the Respondent acted wholly reasonably. 27 The fourth submission concerns the failure of the Respondent to withdraw the improvement notice until 1 April 2025. (Although the Applicant refers to the ‘withdrawal’ of the notice, section 16 of the 2004 Act refers to ‘revocation’. The Respondent appears to suggest that the incorrect terminology used by the Applicant created some confusion and that the request for withdrawal implied that the improvement notice was issued in error, an implication rejected by the Respondent.) 28 Assuming that that failure is properly characterised as action in defending or conducting proceedings, the question is whether it was unreasonable action. [ADDRESS] Company (1985) [COMPANY] v Ratna Alexander [2016] UKUT 290 (LC) Martin Rodger KC said - An assessment of whether behaviour is unreasonable requires a value judgment on which views might differ but the standard of behaviour expected of parties in tribunal proceedings ought not to be set at an unrealistic level. We see no reason to depart from the guidance given in Ridehalgh at 232E, despite the slightly different context. ‘Unreasonable’ conduct includes conduct which is vexatious, and designed to harass the other side rather than advance the resolution of the case. It is not enough that the conduct leads in the event to an unsuccessful outcome. The test may be expressed in different ways. Would a reasonable person in the position of the party have

conducted themselves in the manner complained of? Or Sir [NAME] ‘acid test': is there a reasonable explanation for the conduct complained of? 30 In Lea v GP Ilfracombe [2023] UKUT 108 (LC) Judge Cooke said - The Tribunal in [ADDRESS] envisaged a three-stage decision-making process: first, the FTT should decide whether the Respondent to the application behaved ‘unreasonably’ in the sense set out above; if it was then, second, the FTT should decide whether it should therefore make a costs order; third, and if so, it should consider what order it should make. At paragraph 28 it was said: A decision that the conduct of a party has been unreasonable does not involve an exercise of discretion but rather the application of an objective standard of conduct to the facts of the case. If there is no reasonable explanation for the conduct complained of, the behaviour will properly be adjudged to be unreasonable, and the threshold for the making of an order will have been crossed. A discretionary power is then engaged and the decision maker moves to a second stage of the inquiry. At that second stage it is essential for the tribunal to consider whether, in the light of the unreasonable conduct it has found to have been demonstrated, it ought to make an order for costs or not; it is only if it decides that it should make an order that a third stage is reached when the question is what the terms of that order should be. 31 Section 16(1) of the 2004 Act provides – The local housing authority must revoke an improvement notice if they are satisfied that the requirements of the notice have been complied with. 32 Since the Applicant provided to the Respondent on 24 December 2024 the EICR required by the improvement notice, in the view of the Tribunal, the Respondent must have been satisfied from that date that the requirements of the notice had been complied with. Consequently, the Respondent was under an obligation to revoke the notice under section 16 of the 2004 Act. Applying Sir [RESPONDENT] ‘acid test’, the Respondent has provided no reasonable explanation for the failure to revoke the notice until 1 April 2025. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the incorrect terminology used by the Applicant in requesting the ‘withdrawal’ of the notice (see paragraph 28 above) provides a reasonable explanation of the Respondent’s failure to revoke the notice. The Tribunal therefore determines that, in failing to revoke the notice until 1 April 2025, the Respondent acted unreasonably. 33 That determination raises the second question identified in paragraph 28 of the decision in [ADDRESS], namely whether, ‘in the light of the unreasonable conduct it has found to have been demonstrated, [the Tribunal] ought to make an order for costs or not’. 34 In principle there is no reason why the Tribunal should not make an order for costs. 35 Turning to the third question identified in paragraph 28 of the decision in [ADDRESS], namely the terms of any such order, any award of costs is intended as payment for work done in connection with the proceedings, the schedule of costs provided by the Applicant (summarised in paragraph 22 above) is rather vague as to the work done and takes no account of the guidance on litigant-in-person costs set out in the Civil Procedure Rules 46.5 and paragraph 3.4 of Practice Direction 46. 36 Applying that guidance the Tribunal makes an order under rule 13(1)(b) of the 2013 Rules that the Respondent pay the Applicant costs in the sum of £50.00.

37 In addition, and independently of the order under rule 13(1)(b), the Tribunal makes an order under rule 13(2) that the Respondent reimburse to the Applicant the Tribunal application fee of £110.00.

Order 38 The Tribunal orders – (i) pursuant to rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013, that the Respondent pay to the Applicant costs in the sum of £50.00; (ii) pursuant to rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013, that the Respondent reimburse to the Applicant the Tribunal application fee in the sum of £110.00. Appeal 39 If a party wishes to appeal this Decision, that appeal is to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). However, a party wishing to appeal must first make written application for permission to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. 40 The application for permission to appeal must be received by the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. 41 If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason(s) for not complying with the 28-day time limit. The Tribunal will then consider the reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit. 42 The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

26 May 2026

Professor Nigel Gravells Deputy Regional Judge