A landlord has won the right to access a tenant’s flat to install new fire doors — but only after a protracted legal battle that ended up in London’s High Court.
Since the Grenfell Tower fire last year which killed 72 people, landlords have been under increasing pressure to ensure their properties are fire-safe.
And in May, Dame Judith Hackitt’s report on building regulations and safety following the disaster criticised a culture of “ignorance” and “indifference” towards regulation.
However, when an elderly resident of a sheltered housing scheme refused to allow the charity owners access to install new fire doors, it led to a legal battle that ended up in London’s High Court and racked up considerable costs for the charity.
This case centres on a 52-flat sheltered housing block for the elderly in Wembley owned by charity Network Homes.
Last year, owing to fire-safely concerns, Network Homes decided to install new, fire-safe front doors in all the flats.
However, resident Maurice Harlow refused to allow access to his flat to make the changes “unless certain conditions were complied with”, according to a judgment this week.
Harlow and Network Homes failed to reach an agreement and in November last year, after replacing all the other front doors, issued a claim seeking an injunction forcing Harlow to provide access to allow contractors to replace the door.
At a hearing at the Central London County Court before circuit judge Judge Jan Luba QC, formerly a leading social housing barrister, the charity lost.
The judge found fault with the tenancy agreement, which, although written in simple language, was, the judge noted, “a very poorly drafted document” that did not give the a right of access to the landlord to carry out improvements to the property.
As a result, Network Homes appealed the case to the High Court where, in a ruling on 16 November, judge Mr Justice Henry Carr reversed the ruling and gave the charity access.
Although the tenancy agreement was badly drafted and does not stand up to legalistic scrutiny, a reasonable person would agree that the author was asserting the right of the owner to make improvements, he said.
However, in his ruling, he stressed that the protracted legal wrangling was’t the fault of the County Court judge.
“I have attached very great weight to a decision of a very experienced judge with particular expertise in social housing,” he wrote.
“The judge was required to make multiple decisions in circumstances where, as he noted, the pleadings were chaotic. By contrast, this appeal has been concisely presented.”
The dispute, he said, should have been settled before it got to County Court.
“This case would have been eminently suitable for mediation,” the judge said.
“I do not know whether mediation was proposed by the court or contemplated by the parties. In future, I hope that mediation will be considered at a very early stage of proceedings in similar cases.”
“It is most unfortunate that this case has now required three hearings, at considerable cost to a charity,” he said.
“Costs were also incurred on behalf of Mr Harlow in the County Court, whose case was publicly funded. Such resources are scarce.
“For future tenancy agreements, it should be straightforward to correct mistakes and lack of clarity in the current tenancy agreement. Once this is done, it is to be hoped that similar disputes will be avoided in the future.”
Network Homes Ltd v Maurice Harlow
High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts (Mr Justice Henry Carr), 16 November 2018
