Landlords and managing agents who fail to comply with improvement notices to carry out remedial works to premises in disrepair, even after being convicted of the same, run the risk of being forced to do so under the terms of a mandatory injunction.
In Barking and Dagenham Borough Council v Gbadegesin and another [2023] EWHC 2371 (KB); [2023] PLSCS 164, the first defendant was the owner of residential property in Dagenham. The second defendant was the first defendant’s managing agent for the property. The claimant council was the relevant local housing authority.
Under section 5(1) of the Housing Act 2004, the claimant was under a duty to take enforcement action in respect of category 1 hazards found to exist on residential premises. In May 2022, the first defendant’s tenants complained to the council that the property was in disrepair. Following an investigation by the council, category 1 and category 2 hazards were found to exist at the property. The defendants were subsequently served with enforcement notices but failed to comply with the same.
The council brought criminal proceedings against both defendants. The defendants failed to engage with the criminal proceedings and were subsequently convicted and fined for their failure to comply with the improvement notice. Following the defendants’ convictions, the council’s officers carried out a further inspection of the property. The works required under the improvement notice still had not been carried out.
In July 2023, the council issued a claim for a mandatory injunction to compel the defendants to carry out the works. The first defendant claimed not to be the owner of the property, but the High Court found he was. He also informed an officer of the council that he would not be responding to the claimant or the court. An employee of the second defendant claimed the second defendant company had ceased trading, but this was also found to be untrue.
In granting the mandatory injunction claimed, the High Court observed that its jurisdiction to grant the relief sought should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances. Yet, it was just and convenient to do so in the present case. Before issuing its claim, the council had sought recourse via criminal proceedings but the defendants had continued to fail to comply with the improvement notice even after they had been convicted. Their failure to do so was causing the first defendant’s tenants to suffer unsatisfactory, and possibly unsafe, housing conditions. The defendants had failed to engage with the criminal and civil proceedings and would clearly not comply with the improvement notice unless restrained by an injunction.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
