Flat 31 7 The Coneries Loughborough Leicestershire LE11 1DZ BIR/31UC/HIN/2025/0001
[1]DECISION ON COSTS APPLICATION _________________________________________[2]© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 Preliminary 1 This is the Tribunal’s Decision on an application by the Applicant for an order for costs under rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (‘the 2013 Rules’) following the service and subsequent revocation of an improvement notice by the Respondent. Factual background 2 Although there is some disagreement between the parties as to the factual background, the Tribunal is satisfied that the following account reflects the essential chronology. 3 On 11 December 2024 Louise Johnson, Housing Standards Officer in the Private Sector Housing Team at the Respondent council, was alerted to a water leakage through the ceiling of the subject property into the hallway cupboard (which houses the fuse board) and the lights and the hard-wired smoke alarm in the lounge ceiling. The tenant was advised not to use the electrics in the property until they were checked because of the risk of electrical shock and fire. Ms Johnson was told that the Applicant, the landlord of the property, had been contacted and that a contractor was due to attend the property, 4 On 12 December 2024 Ms Johnson visited the property and the tenant confirmed that a contractor had attended the flat above the subject property and had identified the source of the leak. It is not clear whether the contractor repaired the leak immediately but Ms Johnson noted that the walls and ceiling in the hallway cupboard were wet and that water had leaked on to the fuse box. Water was also visible in the lounge dripping through light fittings and around the hard-wired fire alarm. 5 Ms Johnson emailed the Applicant and requested that the electrics were checked as a matter of urgency to ensure that they were safe to use. The Applicant responded but, according to Ms Johnson, not to confirm that the electrics would be checked but rather to take issue with the Respondent for getting involved in the matter. 6 On 13 December 2024 (a Friday) Ms Johnson again emailed the Applicant to request that the electrics be checked; but she received no response. 7 On 16 December 2024 Ms Johnson repeated her request that the Applicant arrange for an electricity safety check. She also contacted the local fire service to alert them to a potential fire risk. 8 On 17 December 2024 the Applicant emailed Ms Johnson stating that an appointment for an electrical check had been made. Ms Johnson requested the Applicant to provide an updated EICR and stated that she would visit the subject property on 19 December 2024 and that, if no EICR were provided, she would serve an improvement notice. 9 On 18 December 2024 the Applicant emailed Ms Johnson stating that the electrician had been unable to gain access to the subject property because the tenant was not in. However, the tenant confirmed that they had been notified that the electrician would be attending the property, that someone was at the property all day but that no electrician had called.[3]10 On 20 December 2024 no EICR had been provided and, given the perceived urgency and delay, an improvement notice was served by email. The notice was issued under section 11 of the Housing Act 2004 (‘the 2004 Act’) and identified two Category 1 Hazards - Electrocution and Fire. It required the Applicant to employ a suitably qualified electrician(i) to check the electrical installation following the leak through the ceiling from the upstairs flat into light fittings in the lounge and the fuseboard in the hallway cupboard,(ii) to take any remedial action required to make the system safe and(iii) to provide an updated EICR confirming the safety of the electrical installation. 11 Later that day the Applicant emailed Ms Johnson stating that the electrician had been unable to attend on 19 December 2024 but that he had told the Applicant that the electrics should be safe following the leak as nothing had tripped out. The Applicant had passed that message to the tenant. 12 On 23 December 2024 the Applicant confirmed that the electrician had attended the subject property. 13 On 24 December 2024 the Applicant provided an updated EICR. 14 On 3 January 2025 and again on 7 January 2026 the Applicant requested the Respondent to withdraw the improvement notice but she received no response. 15 On 8 January 2025 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 204 (‘the 2004 Act’) to appeal against the improvement notice. 16 On 20 March 2025 the Tribunal issued Directions for the determination of the application. 17 On 1 April 2025 the Respondent issued a Notice of Revocation of the improvement notice, stating that the Respondent was satisfied that the requirements of the improvement notice had been complied with. On the same date Ms Johnson emailed the Tribunal to confirm that the Respondent consented to the withdrawal of the Applicant’s appeal against the improvement notice ‘as the Applicant has complied with the conditions of the improvement notice’. 18 On 17 June 2025 the Tribunal emailed the parties stating that, if the Applicant wished to make application for an order for costs, the Applicant should apply for the withdrawal of the proceedings and at the same time file with the Tribunal and serve on the Respondent a Statement of Costs together with written reasons setting the basis on which an order for costs was sought under rule 13 of the 2013 Rules. 19 On 17 December 2025 the Applicant emailed the Tribunal to confirm that it was happy to withdraw the application and attached an application for costs. 20 On 4 February 2026 the Applicant formally applied to the Tribunal for consent to withdraw the application under rule 22 of the 2013 Rules. 21 On 12 February 2026 the Tribunal formally consented with the withdrawal of the application. On the same date the Tribunal directed the Respondent to provide a response to the Applicant’s costs application.[4]Costs application 22 The Applicant applied under rule 13(1)(b) of the 2013 Rules for an order for costs on the ground that the Respondent has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings in a residential property case. The schedule of costs totalled £260.00, comprising(i) preparation of appeal and Tribunal documents, review of Respondent’s correspondence and evidence and ‘internal management time’ (a total of three hours charged at an hourly rate of £50.00 (£150.00)) and(ii) the Tribunal application fee (£110.00). Representations of the parties 23 The Applicant submitted – (i) that there were no unresolved electrical issues and no evidence of an electrical hazard at the time enforcement action was taken; (ii) that the Applicant kept the Respondent officer fully informed of ongoing efforts to obtain access for the electrical checks requested, including the tenant’s failure to provide access and subsequent appointments arranged once access could be secured; and that any delay was outside the Applicant’s control;(iii) that the improvement notice was issued on the same day that the electrical works were completed, the Council had been informed of this; and that serving the notice in these circumstances was unreasonable and served no legitimate regulatory purpose;(iv) that, despite confirmation that all alleged issues had been resolved, the Respondent refused to withdraw the improvement notice until 1 April 2025; and that during that period the Respondent maintained enforcement action without justification, forcing the Applicant to incur avoidable Tribunal costs. 24 The Respondent submitted – (i) that the Respondent required electrical checks to be carried out to ensure that the property was safe for tenants; and that the Applicant had no way of knowing for certain that the property was safe following the leak without checks being carried out; (ii) that the tenant confirmed that there was someone in the property at all times on the date that the Applicant claims that the electrician attended and was unable to gain access; that, although the Applicant updated the Respondent on progress with electrical checks, given the circumstances and urgency to establish electrical safety, it was reasonable to expect that the Applicant should have made other emergency arrangements to ensure that checks were carried out as soon as possible; that the electrics were left unchecked for eight days – ample time to arrange an emergency electrician to attend and confirm safety; and that, as no such action took place, and because of the unnecessary delay, it was felt reasonable to serve an Improvement Notice; (iii) that the Applicant’s assertion that the improvement notice was issued on the same day as the electrical works were completed is factually incorrect - the improvement notice was served on 20 December 2024 and it was not until 23 December 2024 that the Respondent received confirmation that the required works had been carried out; (iv) that