Elizabeth Dwomoh takes a look at a recent case that provides a salutary lesson to landlords about the importance of complying with improvement notices.
Key point
- The court will grant injunctive relief to ensure compliance with an improvement notice sought by a local authority under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, in exceptional circumstances, where nothing short of injunctive relief will restrain the unlawful action
The Housing Act 2004 bestows power on a local housing authority to serve an improvement notice in respect of hazards found to exist on any residential premises. Such notices can be served on either a landlord or a managing agent in circumstances where the hazard, arising from a deficiency in the premises, poses a risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of the premises. In Barking and Dagenham Borough Council v Gbadegesin and another [2023] EWHC 2371 (KB); [2023] PLSCS 164, the landlord and managing agent discovered that a failure to comply with an improvement notice can result in serious sanctions.
Background
Kehinde Wilson Gbadegesin was the registered proprietor of the residential premises situated at Butteridge Close, Dagenham. Phil Davies Estate Agents Ltd managed the premises on behalf of Gbadegesin. Barking and Dagenham Borough Council was the relevant local housing authority for the area in which the premises were situated.
In May 2022, an officer of the council received a complaint of disrepair at the premises from the tenant and an inspection was carried out. The council’s officer discovered the premises were in serious disrepair with category 1 and category 2 hazards present. The hazards included deficient heating, inadequate smoke detectors, electrical hazards, bed bug infestation, defective locks and hinges on the front door, disrepair to the kitchen, damp and mould.
Action taken
When a local housing authority finds that a category 1 hazard exists on residential premises, it has a duty, under section 5(1), to take appropriate enforcement action. When a category 2 hazard exists, section 7(1) empowers a local housing authority to take certain types of enforcement action.
In August 2022, the council served improvement notices on Gbadegesin and PDEA requiring remedial works to be carried out within a month to eliminate the hazards identified in the premises. The improvement notices were ignored.
Under section 30(5), the obligation to carry out remedial works specified in an improvement notice continues even after the period specified for compliance expires. Further, it is a criminal offence under section 30(1) for a person on whom an improvement notice has been served to fail to comply with the same. In October 2022, an officer of the council sent Gbadegesin and PDEA notice of the council’s intention to prosecute. They were subsequently prosecuted and convicted in their absence for their failure to comply with the improvement notices. Both Gbadegesin and PDEA received hefty fines, which they failed to pay.
Lesson not learnt
In March 2023 and June 2023, further inspections of the premises were carried out by an officer of the council. It was noted that the remedial works required still had not been completed.
Under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, a local authority can institute civil proceedings where it is considered “expedient” to do so “for the promotion or protection of the interests of inhabitants of their area”. In July 2023, the council issued a claim for a final mandatory injunction against Gbadegesin and PDEA to secure their compliance with the improvement notices.
When proceedings were served on Gbadegesin, he alleged that he did not own the premises. A further Land Registry search conducted by the council established he was still the owner. When proceedings were served on PDEA, an employee of the company denied that the premises were managed by PDEA and claimed the company had ceased trading. The employee also alleged that Gbadegesin was in intensive care at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich, SE18. When an officer of the council attempted to serve copies of the proceedings on Gbadegesin at the hospital, it was confirmed by the hospital that he was not a patient.
Injunctive relief
Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 gives the High Court a discretionary power to grant a final injunction where it finds that it is just and convenient to do so.
In City of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Ltd [1992] All ER 697, the Court of Appeal provided guidance as to when injunctive relief under section 222 of the 1972 Act could be obtained. It was determined that the jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief:
- had to be invoked “exceptionally and with great caution”;
- that there had to be more than the mere infringement of criminal law; and
- could be invoked if nothing short of injunctive relief would restrain a defendant’s unlawful actions.
In the present case, the High Court granted the injunctive relief sought. It found that Gbadegesin and PDEA had both shown a blatant disregard towards their duty to comply with the improvement notice. The remedial works remained outstanding and the condition of the premises continued to jeopardise the health and safety of its occupiers. Further, the High Court found that the actions of Gbadegesin and PDEA were a continuing flagrant breach of criminal law. They had failed to engage meaningfully or at all with both the criminal and present civil proceedings. It was evident that they would continue to ignore the improvement notice unless restrained by an injunction.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
