![[2024] UKUT 218 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
The FTT appeal and decision
The FTT appeal and decision
The appeal to the FTT was managed and heard alongside other appeals by Mr Curd and his business partner relating to the revocation and regrant of HMO licences for other properties. Those aspects of the FTT decisions are not the subject of this appeal but they appear to have contributed significantly to the proceedings becoming unwieldy (Mr Curd submitted detailed statements of case running to more than 100 pages, at least two thirds of which were concerned with the other matters).
The substance of Mr Curd’s case to the FTT was that, applying the relevant LACORS guidance, FD30 fire doors were not a requirement in lower risk HMOs of this type where a satisfactory escape route and other fire precautions were provided; he also suggested that the inclusion by Mr Whelan of a requirement for smoke seals discredited his report. In his response to the Council’s evidence, which had included a statement by Mr Whelan, Mr Curd also asserted that contrary to Mr Whelan’s understanding the fire doors were not “nominal” but were certificated “Premdor” doors. In section 6 of his response he addressed each of the defects identified in relation to one of the doors (the kitchen door) and suggested that simple maintenance work would cure some of them while disputing the need for remedial work to address others.
Although Mr Curd did not rely on expert evidence, it is apparent from the written material put before the FTT that there was a live issue about whether much of the work specified in the improvement notice was required at all and about the inclusion of routine maintenance work. Mr Curd asserted that the Council had failed to justify service of the notice and suggested that the appropriate way to deal with such minor works was informally or by the service of a hazard awareness notice.
Before it heard the appeal the FTT conducted an inspection of the HMO accompanied by the parties and by Mr Whelan. It handed down its decision on 30 March 2023, almost two years after the inspection of the doors by Mr Whelan and 21 months after the service of the improvement notice. It recorded the evidence and submissions in respect of the fire doors in only two paragraphs, as follows:
The internal fire doors to the individual bedrooms and common parts were viewed by the Tribunal with the parties and Mr Whelan in some detail and the Tribunal was able to see at first hand the issues raised in the report that accompanied the improvement notice. The Applicant’s view is that the issues identified were not necessarily real. The difficulty for the Council is that in the absence of clear identification of the standard to which the doors are manufactured and installed there is no proof that they are satisfactory for the purposes for which they are intended.
The interior doors were the issue that took up some considerable time at the hearing whilst the Tribunal considered at length the views of the parties as to their adequacy, based largely upon the premise that they were satisfactory and compliant with relevant guidance and law, but that this may, or may not, be sufficiently documented and, in the absence of such documentation what remedial work was required.
The FTT’s findings in relation to the fire doors were contained in two further paragraphs:
The internal fire doors
These may or may not pose a significant risk to the safety of occupiers in the event of fire. The problem is that the answer to that is unknown, but there is clearly insufficient evidence that the doors, to some extent, from door to door, in the manner of their hanging, fitting and alteration are not sufficiently documented as being compliant to fire regulations or guidance. Once again, the Tribunal has some sympathy with the Applicant’s position and is of the view that the situation is best remedied by obtaining a report from an independent, suitably qualified fire risk assessor as to the fire safety provision within the building with particular reference to the internal doors and compliance, or otherwise, with the relevant fire regulations and guidance. The Applicant should then act appropriately upon the findings of that report.
The FTT then considered whether the outstanding matters of concern to the City Council could be addressed by a hazard awareness notice but said that, because fire can bring serious risks in an HMO, they should be addressed in an improvement notice. It therefore allowed the appeal and varied the notice, removing reference to hazards and remedial work which had already been attended to, leaving the reference to the hazard of fire and specifying the following remedial action to be taken by Mr Curd:
Obtain a report from an independent, suitably qualified fire risk assessor as to fire safety provision within the building with particular reference to the internal doors and thereafter act appropriately upon the findings.
The FTT varied the date for completion of the remedial work to 31 July 2023, but added that it was aware that further work had already been carried out to the doors since the original hearing.
Mr Curd applied for permission to appeal but he also obtained a fire door report by an independent assessor, as the FTT had directed. This assessment, dated 17 August 2023, concluded that all doors were FD30 fire doors and “functioned as required”.
In his application for permission to appeal Mr Curd presented a rather more focused explanation of his case than he had previously done, and this appears to have made a favourable impression on the FTT. When it invited a response from the Council it commented that “there is evidence which suggests that it is more likely than not that the doors are sufficiently compliant, notwithstanding they may not satisfy a 30-minute test”. I do not know if the Council responded to the FTT’s invitation but, on 5 February 2024 it granted permission to appeal. It described the issue for which it gave permission as “the suitability of the doors currently fitted to provide adequate fire protection to the occupants of the property”.