Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Local Authority imposed a £4,000 financial penalty on 19 July 2019 for 17 breaches of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 under section 234(3) of the Housing Act 2004. The Applicant, Amonbir Mander, appealed the penalty, and the Tribunal found all 17 breaches valid but reduced the penalty to £2,000, citing partial compliance, ongoing licensing efforts, and the property’s role in providing temporary accommodation for homeless individuals. Key issues included fire safety defects, missing emergency contact details, and maintenance failures.
Issues
- Fire doors in rooms 1, 2, and 3 were missing intumescent heat and smoke seals. The Applicant accepted the breach and stated tenants had not informed him of the issue. Repairs were completed.
- Two fire extinguishers on the first floor indicated low pressure, with the last inspection in 08/17. The Applicant accepted the breach, and the issue was resolved.
- The fire door to room 8 did not close properly due to damage from a fight. The Applicant accepted the breach, and the defect was rectified.
- The rear exit door was obstructed by a rug, preventing it from opening fully. The Applicant accepted the breach, and the rug was removed.
- The Applicant did not display required emergency contact details in the entrance hall. Residents had removed the information on several occasions, and it was not displayed during the Tribunal's inspection.
- The fire door in the first floor corridor did not close properly. The Applicant accepted the door required minor adjustment to the closer.
- Room 9 had mould on the bathroom ceiling, a water leak, and a missing light cover. The Applicant accepted the breach, attributing the leak to a resident's actions. Repairs were completed.
- Room 8 had minor condensation and damaged flooring. The Applicant accepted the breach, and the room was left empty for renovation.
- Light switches in the hallway were dirty. The Applicant accepted the breach, and the switches were cleaned.
- A cracked paving slab in the front entrance path posed a trip hazard. The Applicant accepted the breach, and the issue was rectified.
- The first floor shared toilet's wash hand basin had a gap preventing easy cleaning. The Applicant accepted the breach and explained it was damaged by a tenant. Partial repairs were made.
- The sink splashback in room 2 was missing a seal. The Applicant accepted the breach, and the issue was rectified.
- Room 3's bathroom carpet was not cleansable and the flooring was damaged. The Applicant accepted the breach and had the carpet cleaned, but replacement was delayed due to tenant resistance.
- Room 10's bathroom window had a large unsealed gap. The Applicant accepted the breach, explaining the vent was poorly fitted. Replacement was required.
- Room 1's extract fan was in filthy condition, and the cold tap did not turn off. The Applicant accepted the breach, and the issue was resolved.
- Room 7's bathroom door had a missing glazed section, and the shower case was holed. The Applicant replaced the door pane but left the room empty pending renovation.
- Room 4 had an ongoing water leak in the bathroom. The Applicant accepted the breach, attributing it to a tenant's actions. The issue was resolved.
Holdings
- The Tribunal found beyond reasonable doubt that the Applicant failed to comply with the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006, amounting to an offence under section 234(3) of the Housing Act 2004. This determination was based on 17 alleged breaches, though some were deemed de minimis.
- The Tribunal reduced the Financial Penalty from £4,000 to £2,000, recognizing partial compliance and the Applicant's efforts to address breaches. The decision balanced deterrence with the need to maintain the viability of the Applicant's business providing temporary accommodation for homeless individuals.
Remedies
Penalty reduction from £4000 to £2000
Monetary Damages
2000.00
Legal Principles
- The burden of proof rested on the Applicant to demonstrate non-compliance with the 2006 Regulations. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had failed to meet this burden in relation to all 17 alleged breaches.
- The Tribunal applied the standard of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' to assess whether the Applicant failed to comply with the 2006 Regulations under section 234(3) of the Housing Act 2004. This standard is critical for determining relevant housing offences under section 249A of the same Act.
Cited Statute
- Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006
- Housing Act 2004
Judge Name
D Jackson
Passage Text
- 52. Under Paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 13A of the Housing Act 2004 the Tribunal varies the amount of the Financial Penalty imposed by the Final Notice in relation to an offence contrary to section 234(3) of the 2004 Act to £2000.
- 33. We set out below our findings in relation the 17 breaches... Had the Local Authority approached the matter in this way it might have concluded that no purpose would be served by pursuing a large number of considerably less serious failings.
- 29. In general, we agree with the approach of the Local Authority... The present breaches are more serious than previous failings and the penalty amounts to approximately £235 per offence.