Unfair practice by Council re hazards in house?

Unfair practice by Council re hazards in house?

10:22 AM, 21st March 2018, About 6 years ago 23

Text Size

I have a buy to let property where the tenant asked the Council to assess the house using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). She had not raised, with me, any concerns about the condition of the house beforehand.

The Council raised a few minor points, like broken light switch, down pipe leaking onto bathroom wall resulting in a damp issue etc. They listed these as hazards and they were simple to rectify.

The Council also issued a Schedule 2 which is headed. “Remedial action which the Council considers practical and appropriate to take in respect of the hazards found.”

As there was a broken light switch they have said they are entitled to an Electrical Report by an Electrician and I am obliged to undertake all work listed even though no such report is legally required
With regard to the damp issue they require a Damp Proof Report for the whole house and a plan to undertake any works required even though no damp outside the bathroom has been detected.

I assume if there was a missing roof tile I would need to employ a roofing Company to provide a full roof report about the structure of the roof and likewise any cracking on a wall could require a full structural survey to be undertaken.

I have complained that this is a fishing expedition which was not the point of the HHSRS, but they say they are entitled to require anything they like relating to any issue found at the property.

I wonder, as this is so draconian that I would live in fear of other tenants going to the Council before approaching me, whether anybody else has experienced this problem, or has any advice how to counter the Councils approach?

Many thanks

Simon


Share This Article


Comments

Michael Barnes

11:57 AM, 22nd March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 21/03/2018 - 22:03
That was my understanding until I went and re-read S33 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/section/33/enacted). S33(1) is a plain statement that once a "relevant notice" has been issues, a S21 cannot be issued and relied upon for a period of time; no caveats.

How do you see that interacting with S33(2)?

Chris @ Possession Friend

13:36 PM, 22nd March 2018, About 6 years ago

Michael,
Sec 33(1) says a Sec 21 Notice can't be GIVEN (my emphasis) After a Notice [ Improvement etc ] has Been served.
Nowhere is there reference to an Improvement Notice Subsequently Invalidating a Sec 21. - in fact, to the contrary, a specific process has to be followed by a tenant in a set order.
If you look at eminent legal professionals, Giles Peaker, Nearly Legal and Tessa's sites, you see the same understanding as you originally believed and as I've outlined here.
PossessionFriend.uk would be comfortable in dealing with a case in these circumstances.
Regards, Chris

Michael Barnes

23:23 PM, 22nd March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 22/03/2018 - 13:36
I was not commenting on invalidating an already-issued S21, I was observing that it appears that S33(2) can be entirely circumvented by a tenant going direct to the local authority.

S33(2) (b) effectively says "the tenant must give the landlord an opportunity to fix the issue" and if that opportunity is taken, then the council cannot issue a Relevant Notice under S33(2)(d), and so the LL is then able to serve a S21 at any time.

However, if the tenant does not complain to the Landlord as in S33(2)(a), but instead approaches the local authority directly, then the authority can issue a Relevant Notice (as defined in 33(13)), and S33(1) says the landlord is then prevented from serving a S21 for 6 months.
S33(1) does not say "a relevant notice issued under S33(2)".

Thus it appears that (as in the case of the original article) a tenant can go directly to the council, the council issues a "relevant notice" without giving the landlord the opportunity to address the issue and the LL is then prevented from S21 for 6 months; but if the tenant goes to the LL and the LL addresses the issue, then there is no effect on the LL's ability to use S21.
So the tenant is potentially in a worse position by going to the LL first

Chris @ Possession Friend

7:06 AM, 23rd March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 22/03/2018 - 23:23
I don't read that part in isolation and neither do other legal commentators I mentioned. I suppose only a case would settle the matter. Regards

Giles Peaker

11:56 AM, 24th March 2018, About 6 years ago

S.33(1) and s.33(2) are separate and do different things.

S.33(1) means that no section 21 can be served within 6 months of an Improvement Notice or Emergency Remedial Order being served by the council. There is no requirement for tenant to give notice to landlord of issues.

S.33(2) sets out the conditions under which a s.21 notice can be retrospectively invalidated. In short, T complains to LL. LL doesn’t sort the problem. LL serves s.21 notice. Council then serves Improvement Notice. The s.21 then becomes invalid.

If the original poster received an Improvement Notice, and had not already served a s.21, they now can’t serve one for 6 months from the Notice.

Luke P

12:01 PM, 24th March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 24/03/2018 - 11:56
In your view then, Giles, there is no requirement for a tenant to report an issue to the LL first?

Giles Peaker

12:13 PM, 24th March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 24/03/2018 - 12:01
No requirement. After all, the council could serve an Improvement Notice without the tenant having complained to them either! An inspection for an HMO licence, for example.

But if the LL serves a s.21 before the Improvement Notice is served, it is not invalidated unless the tenant had previously complained in writing to the LL.

Luke P

16:45 PM, 24th March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 24/03/2018 - 12:13
I was inclined to agree, although the spirit of the law is to prevent *retaliatory* evictions and with that in mind, any Improvement Notice received under a licence inspection, for example, or arising not from a complaint by the tenant, any subsequent notice served could not be deemed retaliatory against the tenant and their (lack of) actions.

Prevention of service is not, cannot/should not be, punishment in itself for having defects with the property. It was specifically intended to stop a tenant being evicted for merely raising a repair report…would you not agree?

Giles Peaker

17:39 PM, 24th March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 24/03/2018 - 16:45
I’m afraid this is not something to be agreed with or not. It is the case under the legislation.

33(2) is the retaliatory eviction provision.

33(1) is said to be an encouragement to landlords to keep the property in good condition. The Explanatory Notes say

“The policy rationale for the changes is to prevent tenants from feeling unable to complain about poor property conditions because they fear eviction. The government also intends that the sections should encourage landlords to keep their property in a decent condition and to comply with all legal obligations placed upon them, in order not to lose their right to rely on section 21. The changes that are made to the section 21 procedure aim to make the eviction process more straightforward for both landlords and tenants. The sections do not make any changes to the eviction procedure contained in section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, which provides for the eviction of tenants where there are grounds to do so, for example because a tenant has not been paying rent or has been engaging in anti-social behaviour.”

I’d add that councils don’t serve improvement notices lightly, even where there is a category 1 hazard. There are nearly always ‘informal resolution’ attempts first. The presumption of 33(1) is that there has been a sustained failure by the LL.

Note s.34 means s.33 doesn’t apply where the defect is caused by the tenant.

Luke P

17:57 PM, 24th March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 24/03/2018 - 17:39
So effectively it is punishment in itself. What a disaster.

The situation in your second-to-last paragraph is changing though. A neighbouring authority to me that previously had a great working relationship with LLs and the local LL association are now going straight to formal notice on both Category 1 and Category 2 hazards!

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now