London’s Court of Appeal today ruled in favour of landlords in a dispute over the conditions local authorities can impose on them before their properties can be inhabited.
The three judge panel ruled that Hyndburn Borough Council was wrong to require landlords to provide and maintain a carbon monoxide detector and a valid Electoral Installation Condition report (EICR).
The case was brought by one landlord “acting in conjunction” with 346 more. But, the judgment said, today’s ruling will effect landlords and councils nationwide as it examines the powers councils have when issuing licenses relating to “the management, use or occupation of the house concerned” under Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004.
Although the landlord bringing the case complied with the council’s requirements, his lawyers argue landlords should not be subject to conditions if they are unlawful, especially if there are criminal sanctions for breach, which could occur through the actions of tenants. In addition, they argue that more onerous conditions may be demanded.
In a ruling of almost 100 paragraphs, the court found that “regulating the management use and occupation” of a house, “cannot be read so widely as to apply to conditions that regulate the ‘condition and contents’ of a house or what ‘facilities and equipment’ should be available in it”.
Requiring the installation and maintenance of a carbon monoxide detector and EICR is “unlawful” in this circumstance because “it seeks to regulate the condition or contents of a house,” the court ruled.
Paul Brown v Hyndburn Borough Council, Court of Appeal, on appeal from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (Underhill LJ, King LJ, Hildyard LJ) 21 Feb 2018
