Failure to comply with an improvement notice
Failure to comply with an improvement notice
Part 1 of the 2004 Act provides for a system of assessing the condition of residential premises and for the enforcement of housing standards by reference to hazards. A hazard is defined in section 2(1) as “any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling (whether the deficiency arises as a result of the construction of any building, an absence of maintenance or repair, or otherwise).” Provision is made for category 1 and category 2 hazards to be defined in regulations, category 1 being the more serious, the regulations being the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005.
Section 5 of the 2004 Act provides that if a local housing authority considers that a category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises it must take the appropriate enforcement action, from a number of possible actions ranging from an improvement notice to a demolition order. Section 2 gives the local authority a power to take enforcement action in relation to category 2 hazards (contrast the duty created by section 5 in relation to category 1).
Sections 11 and following make provision about improvement notices, which are to specify the hazard to which they relate, to state what remedial action is required, and to say by when the work must commence and by when it must be completed.
Section 30(1) provides that a person upon whom an improvement notice was served commits an offence if he fails to comply with it, and section 30(5) says that in proceedings against such a person it is a defence that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the notice. Section 30(6) says “The obligation to take any remedial action specified in the notice … continues despite the fact that the period for completion of the action has expired.”
- Heading
- Introduction
- The legal background
- Failure to comply with an improvement notice
- Failure to comply with HMO regulations
- Financial penalties
- The facts, and the decision in the FTT
- The appeal
- Ground 1: mitigation arising from the respondent’s approval of the premises for Mr Douglas
- Ground 2: the “final determinant” and the benefit to the landlord
- Ground 3: totality
- Discussion and conclusion
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 263 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)