Dr. J Wilcox FRICSMr D Tolley: : : : for the Applicant: : : : for the RespondentDate 20 July 2026Hearing 2026-06-12Property: Sea, Essex, SS0 8LXType of application: Sections 11 and 12 and paragraphs 10-12 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2024 Judge R Boucher
DECISION
(1) The Tribunal confirms the Improvement Notice dated 9 December 2025 subject to the following variations:a. Damp and Mould (Category One) and Excess Cold (Category One) – Items 6 and 7 of Schedule 2 of the Improvement Notice should be removed. These are cosmetic remedial works that may be required after other necessary works have been complied with, however as separate items they are not matters which are necessary to remedy the hazard identified.b. Falls on the Level (Category Two) – Items 10, 11 and 12. This hazard was miscategorised as Category One and the Tribunal varies the Improvement Notice so that it reads Category Two.c. Damp and Mould (Category One) – Item 13 of Schedule 2 of the Improvement Notice should be removed as there are other effective methods of reducing the spread of water vapour that are less intrusive than installation of mechanical ventilation and the Tribunal's decision is that this was not a Category One hazard in light of the Respondent's concession of the same.d. Damp and Mould (Category One) – Item 14 of Schedule 2 of the Improvement Notice should be removed as the Tribunal was not sufficiently persuaded that this hazard was present in the kitchen such that these works should have been included in the Improvement Notice.e. Fire Safety (Category Two) - Item 15 of Schedule 2 of the Improvement Notice should be removed as, on the evidence in front of the Tribunal, the Property did benefit from the required fire detection system at the date of the Improvement Notice. Item 16 of Schedule 2 shall remain undisturbed (insofar as it relates to the installations identified at Item 15) as the Applicant should provide the Respondent with the necessary certificates in any event.f. Damp and Mould (Category One) – Item 19 of Schedule 2 of the Improvement Notice should be removed. These are cosmetic remedial works that may be required after other necessary works have been complied with, however as a separate item they are not matters which are necessary to remedy the hazard identified.g. The works listed in the Improvement Notice, as varied by this decision, must be completed within 3 months of the date of this decision. 2(2) The Tribunal makes the determinations as set out under the various headings in this decision.
REASONS
[6]The Applicant has appealed against an improvement notice dated 9 December 2025 ("the Improvement Notice") made under sections 11 and 12 of the Housing Act 2004 (“the Act”) in relation to Category 1 and Category 2 hazards. The Improvement Notice required the Applicant to carry out specified works commencing no later than 9 January 2026 with the work required to be completed within 3 months of that date. Pursuant to an application dated 28 December 2025, received by the Tribunal on 29 December 2025, the Applicant appealed against the Improvement Notice in accordance with paragraph 10(1) of Part 3, Schedule 1 to the Act ("the Application"). On 23 March 2026 the Tribunal gave directions ("the Directions”) for filing and serving evidence. The Directions required the Respondent to file a bundle of documents by 20 April 2026, and the Applicant to file their bundle by 18 May 2026. On 1 May 2026 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for an extension of time to provide their bundle on the basis that the Respondent's bundle was served late. The Tribunal granted this application and gave amended directions on 6 May 2026 ("the Amended Directions"). The Amended Directions required the Applicant to file their bundle by 26 May 2026. On 2 June 2026 the Tribunal issued notice that it was minded to strike out the Application because of the Applicant's failure to provide its bundle of documents by 26 May 2026. The notice gave the parties the opportunity to make representations as to whether the Applicant should be struck out. The Applicant provided its bundle of documents to the Tribunal on 8 June 2026. The Tribunal decided that the hearing of the Application should go ahead as listed on 12 June 2026. The Property and the parties[7]The Applicant is the freehold owner of 42 Hamlet Court Road, Westcliff on-Sea, SS0 7LX ("the Property"). The Property comprises a maisonette arranged over the first, second and third floors of a pre-1920 mid-terrace house that has since been converted into flats. 3[8]The Respondent is the local housing authority. Inspection and Hearing[17]The Tribunal carried out an inspection of the Property on the morning of the hearing. The inspection was attended by Mr Isaac Glausiusz ("Mr Glausiusz"), director of the Applicant and his son, Yisroel Glausius. Mr Paul Oatt, a Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner, and Ms Sandra Mower, an Enforcement Officer, attended on behalf of the Respondent. The occupiers of the Property were present. The Tribunal was able to inspect each room in the Property, as well as the internal common parts between the shared front door of the building and the front door of the Property, as well as the external areas to the front and back of the building. The hearing took place at Southend-on-Sea County Court. Mr Glausiusz represented the Applicant at the hearing. Mr Crossley, counsel, represented the Respondent. The Tribunal had before it the Applicant's paginated bundle which ran to 149 pages and the Respondent's paginated bundle which ran to 173 pages. Additionally, during the hearing, the Tribunal was provided with a copy of a tenancy agreement dated 19 September 2019 from the Applicant to Mr Anu Miah, said to be the current tenancy agreement relating to the Property. The Tribunal has considered all of these documents, as well as the evidence given by the parties, in coming to its decision. Since the hearing the Tribunal has been copied into a number of emails from the parties. Those emails and any documents attached to them have not been considered. The Applicant submitted witness statements from Mr Glausiusz, Roberto Santos, Yisroel Glausius, and Terrence Boobyer. The Respondent submitted a witness statement from Mr Oatt. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Glausiusz and limited evidence from Mr Santos for the Applicant, and from Mr Oatt for the Respondent. Mr Crossley addressed the Tribunal at the outset of the hearing. He told the Tribunal that the parties had been engaging in constructive discussions as to how the items in the Improvement Notice could be addressed without the need to proceed with the hearing, and that good progress was being made in reaching agreement. Mr Crossley asked the Tribunal to consider adjourning the hearing to allow for agreement. 4[18]The Tribunal declined to adjourn the hearing on this basis. The statutory framework (as set out in more detail below) required the Tribunal to consider the decision of the local authority to issue an improvement notice at the date of decision. The fact that the parties were engaging in constructive dialogue at the date of the hearing was encouraging. However, the Tribunal had regard to the overriding objective set out at Rule 3 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. The Tribunal decided that proceeding with the hearing was the best way to deal with the case in a proportionate way, avoiding further delay, so that the case was dealt with fairly and justly. To adjourn would be disproportionate in the circumstances.[20]The parties indicated that because the majority of the issues addressed in the Improvement Notice had been agreed between the parties, there would not be many areas of dispute in the hearing. This turned out not to be the case, and almost every item was disputed. The Tribunal gave the Respondent the opportunity to make submissions at the outset of the hearing as to the lateness of the Applicant supplying its bundle of documents. Mr Crossley did not submit that the Applicant's evidence should be excluded but noted that the Respondent had not been given the opportunity to put in a reply which the Amended Directions had allowed for. The Tribunal accepted Mr Crossley's point and confirmed that any points the Applicant wished to make in reply that it had not had the opportunity to make in writing could be made orally during the hearing. The Law[23]Part 1 of the Act provides for a system of assessing the condition of residential premises, and the way in which this is to be used in enforcing housing standards. It provides for the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the “HHSRS”), which evaluates the potential risk of harm from any deficiencies identified in dwellings using objective criteria. Local Authorities apply the HHSRS to assess the condition of residential property in their areas. The HHSRS enables the assessment of prescribed hazards by calculating their seriousness as a numerical score by a prescribed method. Hazards that score 1000 or above are classed as Category 1 hazards, whilst hazards with a score below 1000 are classed as Category 2 hazards. Section 2(1) of the Act defines a hazard as: “… any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling (whether the deficiency arises as a result of the construction of any building, an absence of maintenance or repair, or otherwise)”. 5[24]Section 2(3) of the Act provides that: “… regulations under this Section may, in particular, prescribe a method for calculating the seriousness of hazards which takes into account both the likelihood of the harm occurring and the severity of the harm if it were to occur”. Those regulations are the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005, which prescribe the method for calculating hazard scores under the HHSRS.[30]Section 5 of the Act requires that, if a Local Authority considers that a Category 1 hazard exists in respect of any residential premises, it must take appropriate enforcement action. Section 5(2) sets out seven courses of enforcement action which are appropriate for a Category 1 hazard. The types of enforcement action that a Local Authority may take following identification of a Category 1 hazard include service of an improvement notice. There are others, which are not material for the purposes of this decision. Section 7 of the Act contains similar provisions in relation to Category 2 hazards. A Local Authority has power to take enforcement action in cases where it considers that a Category 2 hazard exists on residential premises and those courses of action include service of an improvement notice. The power is discretionary and not mandatory; unlike the position for Category 1 hazards. Section 9 of the Act requires the Local Authority to have regard to the HHSRS operating guidance and the HHSRS enforcement guidance. Sections 11 to 19 of the Act specify the requirements of an Improvement Notice for Category 1 and 2 hazards. Section 11(2) defines an improvement notice as a notice requiring the person on whom it is served to take such remedial action in respect of the hazard as specified in the improvement notice. Section 11(8) of the Act defines remedial action as action (whether in the form of carrying out works or otherwise, which could extend to undertaking investigations or obtaining a report) which in the opinion of the Local Authority will remove or reduce the hazard. Section 11(5) provides that the remedial action specified must, as a minimum, be sufficient either to remove the hazard or to reduce it to a category 2 hazard. Section 12 of the Act deals with an improvement notice for a Category 2 hazard and contains similar provisions to those in section 11. One key distinction is that the Local Authority must take steps in relation to identified Category 1 hazards but has a discretion whether to do so for identified Category 2 hazards. In Curd v Liverpool City Council [2024] UKUT 218 (LC), the Upper Tribunal drew the distinction between a requirement for investigations where no hazard had been identified as existing, and an investigation as to the scope or extent of a hazard or remedial works required where such 6 hazard had been identified. An improvement notice cannot lawfully be used to require investigations aimed solely at establishing whether a hazard exists. However, where a hazard has already been identified, an improvement notice may require further investigation into the extent of the hazard or the remedial measures required.[35]An appeal may be made to the Tribunal against an improvement notice under paragraph 10, Part 3, Schedule 1 to the Act. The time limit for appeals is set out in paragraph 13, Part 3 Schedule 1 to the Act and is within the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the improvement notice was served. An appeal is by way of a rehearing and may be determined by the Tribunal having regard to matters of which the Local Authority was unaware at the time of its original decision (paragraph 15(2), Part 3 Schedule 1 to the Act). The Tribunal may confirm, quash or vary an improvement notice or other decision relating to it. The function of the Tribunal on an appeal against an improvement notice is not restricted to a review of the Local Authority’s decision. The Tribunal is "required to consider whether the decision under appeal was wrong at the time when the decision was taken (and not at the date of the appeal)" London Borough of Waltham Forest v Hussain [2023] EWCA Civ 733 and reaffirmed in Manaquel Company Ltd v London Borough of Lambeth [2025] UKUT 97 (LC) at paragraph 43. Where the decision under appeal involves the exercise of discretion or judgment by a local authority the Tribunal should not interfere unless: “having afforded it what is variously described in the authorities as “great respect” or “considerable weight”, it is satisfied that the decision is wrong. In making that evaluation the appellate tribunal must pay proper attention to the decision under challenge and the reasoning behind it. If the decision is based on the application of lawful policy it must ask itself whether the impugned decision, and any different decision it proposes to make, is in accordance with that policy. The burden lies on the party challenging the decision to satisfy the tribunal that it should take a different view from the primary decision maker.” London Borough of Waltham Forest v Hussain at paragraph 77. The Issues and Background The issues set out in the Amended Directions identify the issues the Tribunal must determine. In broad terms, the challenge is to the decision to issue the Improvement Notice.(a) Did the Respondent go through the necessary steps prior to issue of the Improvement Notice? 7(b) Do hazards exist and, if so, in what category?(c) Should the Respondent have taken enforcement action?(d) If so, what enforcement action was appropriate?(e) If an Improvement Notice was the correct action, should the terms be varied (e.g., specified remedial works and/or timescales)?[40]The Property was subject to selective licensing. A licensing compliance inspection was carried out by the Respondent between April and May 2025. The resulting report identified a number of concerns including defects to balcony doors, evidence of water ingress, leaks, concerns regarding balcony safety, and other matters requiring remedial works. Following that inspection there was correspondence between council officers and the Appellant concerning the works required and arrangements for access. The council sought updates regarding progress and warned that formal enforcement action might follow if the defects were not addressed. The Appellant's case is that following the compliance inspection contractors were instructed and substantial works were carried out. The Appellant states that works undertaken included fire safety improvements, communal lighting, repairs to the Property and other remedial works. The Appellant further contends that difficulties were experienced obtaining access to the Property and that contractors were on a number of occasions unable to gain entry. The Appellant maintains that these access difficulties materially affected its ability to complete further works. On 6 November 2025 the Respondent served notices under section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 informing the Appellant and occupiers that an HHSRS inspection would take place. The inspection was carried out on 14 November 2025 by Mr Oatt. Following that inspection the Respondent identified seven hazards. Three were assessed as Category 1 hazards, namely Damp and Mould, Excess Cold, and Domestic Hygiene, Pests and Refuse. Four were assessed as Category 2 hazards, namely Personal Hygiene, Sanitation and Drainage, Falls on the Level, Falls Between Levels and Fire Safety. On 19 November 2025 the Respondent wrote to the Appellant setting out the findings of the inspection and inviting representations before enforcement action was taken. The Respondent's position is that this afforded the Appellant an opportunity to comment upon the findings and proposed course of action. 8[41]The Appellant subsequently sent an email containing photographs and videos which it says demonstrated attempts to obtain access to the Property. The Respondent was unconvinced that those materials established any inability to gain access and considered that they lacked sufficient context. The parties therefore differ as to the significance of the access issues and the extent to which those issues may have prevented completion of works.[43]On 9 December 2025 the Respondent served the Improvement Notice. The Improvement Notice identified seven hazards set out in Schedule 1, which were:(a) Damp and Mould, Band C Category One(b) Excess Cold, Band C Category One(c) Domestic Hygiene Pests and Refuse, Band C Category One(d) Personal Hygiene, Sanitation and Drainage, Band E Category Two(e) Falls on the Level, Band D Category Two(f) Falls Between Levels, Band F Category Two(g) Fire Safety, Band F Category Two The Improvement Notice set out the specification of works to be carried out to address the hazards at Schedule 2, which listed 19 numbered items. Evidence and Submissions, and Decisions[45]In light of the fact that the Applicant was unrepresented, and the indication given by the parties at the outset of the hearing that they were broadly in agreement as to the majority of the matters raised in the Improvement Notice, the Tribunal adopted an "issue-by-issue" approach to the hearing, dealing with the items in the specification of works set out at Schedule 2 to the Improvement Notice in order. The Tribunal was of the view that this would be the most effective way of identifying what was still truly in dispute. In fact, as set out above, the parties were in disagreement over almost every issue. Some overarching themes emerged during the evidence. Although Mr Glausiusz is the sole director of the Applicant, he did not appear to have full day-to-day involvement with the management of the Property. Many of his answers to questions from Mr Crossley or the Tribunal were that he had outsourced the issue to a contractor who had been asked to carry 9 out remedial works, and therefore it must have been done or, if it had not been done, it would be done.[53]Alternatively, he relied on what he said were difficulties in obtaining access to the Property. In most cases he had again relied on his contractors to seek access, rather than considering what powers the Applicant had as landlord to require access from their tenants. The Tribunal does not accept that any issues the Applicant may have had in obtaining access should be taken into account when making its decision on the Improvement Notice. The Applicant could not evidence that it had considered, or taken, any formal steps to require access in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal took the view that overall Mr Glausiusz was trying to assist the Tribunal in giving his evidence, but frequently he simply did not have first-hand knowledge of the relevant issue and relied on what others had told him. Mr Santos briefly gave evidence on behalf of the Applicant in relation to the works he carried out on behalf of the Applicant. He could not recall precise dates that he carried out those works. He stated that he had difficulty obtaining access to the Property when he attended, and it took four or five attempts until he was afforded access. His evidence was of limited assistance to the Tribunal. Mr Oatt gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. On the whole his evidence was clear and coherent. The Tribunal was of the view that some of the hazards identified by Mr Oatt were overstated, however he made some reasonable concessions, which we set out below. In accordance with London Borough of Waltham Forest v Hussain, the Tribunal must assess whether the decision under appeal was wrong at the time when the decision was taken, which in this case was 9 December 2025. The Tribunal adopts that date as the relevant date for each decision. Before considering the items in the Improvement Notice that are under appeal, the Tribunal refers to one of the recommendations contained in the Improvement Notice. The recommendation is that a secondary means of escape through the living room should be provided by relocating the L-shaped sofa so that it does not obstruct an exit. This was categorised as Fire Safety Band F Category Two. The Tribunal took note of this sofa when it carried out its inspection. The Tribunal heard the Applicant's evidence that the tenants had been asked to move the sofa but had not done so. Although included within the Improvement Notice as a recommendation, this matter does not form 10 part of the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore does not form part of the Tribunal's decision on this appeal. The Applicant may nevertheless wish to consider this recommendation and whether there are enforcement provisions within the tenancy agreement which could assist in addressing this potential fire safety risk. Item 1 (Relevant hazards: Damp and Mould Category One; Excess Cold Category One; Personal Hygiene, Sanitation and Drainage Category Two) Item 2 (Relevant hazard: Personal Hygiene, Sanitation and Drainage Category Two)[58]Mr Oatt gave evidence that the roof and rear wall above the kitchen required renewal (Item 1). The Tribunal was referred to photographs in the Respondent's bundle, including those at pages 141 and 142, and to thermal imaging images which showed cold spots in the kitchen. Mr Glausiusz's evidence was that he had sent contractors to deal with leaks into the kitchen, but he did not give specific dates that he said these works had been done. Messages from the Applicant's contractor Mr Boobyer which were exhibited within the Applicant's bundle at pages 108-110 suggest he attended in February 2026 (which may accord with an invoice date 2 February 2026 at page 79 of the same bundle). Accordingly, even if Item 1 was remedied by the Applicant (which was not accepted by Mr Oatt), it was only remedied after the date of the Improvement Notice. Similarly for cleaning and renewing the guttering (Item 2), Mr Glausiusz's evidence was that the gutters had been fixed. The messages from Mr Boobyer at page 109 of the Applicant's bundle suggest that if Item 2 was remedied by the Applicant (which was not accepted by Mr Oatt), it was only remedied after the date of the Improvement Notice. The Tribunal's decision is that the Respondent was correct to identify Items 1 and 2 at the relevant date and to include them in the Improvement Notice. Item 3 (Relevant hazard: Falls between Levels Category Two) Item 4 (Relevant hazards: Personal Hygiene, Sanitation and Drainage Category Two; Falls on the Level Category Two) These items both relate to the front balcony at first floor level, on the street facing side. Mr Oatt gave evidence that he had identified that the perimeter balcony accessible from the first floor living room was too low and should be raised to 1100mm from the balcony floor in accordance with building 11 regulations. This was Item 3. A photograph of the balcony perimeter, as it was during Mr Oatt's inspection on 14 November 2025, is at page 150 of the Respondent's bundle. When the Tribunal inspected the premises on the date of the hearing, works had been done to the balcony perimeter. A new higher brick wall had been constructed on the street facing side, however the flank wall remained unchanged.[65]Mr Glausiusz's evidence was that the construction of a higher wall on the front of the building required planning permission, which had impeded remediation of this item. No evidence was in the Applicant's bundle to support this contention, nor was there any evidence of an application for such planning permission. In any event, Item 3 did not prescribe that a new brick wall must be constructed. The works required were that the balcony should have a perimeter of at least 1100mm in height. No evidence was in front of the Tribunal as to whether an alternative construction method could have been identified which may not have required planning permission. Mr Glausiusz could not state when this new brick wall was constructed. However, the Tribunal notes an invoice at page 83 of the Applicant's bundle dated 5 January 2026 which appears to relate to the brick construction of balcony walls. As to Item 4, Mr Oatt's evidence was that rainwater discharged from a downpipe onto the balcony above a hole which caused the hazards identified. A picture of what he was describing can be seen at page 148 of the Respondent's bundle. At page 51 of the Applicant's bundle in a photograph exhibited to Mr Santos' statement the same downpipe discharging over the hole can be seen. Mr Glausiusz's evidence was that the tenants of the Property kept numerous plants on the balcony which impeded remedying this item. The Tribunal noted on our inspection of the Property that the hole and the downpipe in question were indeed obscured by plant pots. However, the Applicant clearly had the opportunity to remedy this issue when they were carrying out the works shown on page 51. The Tribunal's decision is that the Respondent was correct to identify Items 3 and 4 at the relevant date and to include them in the Improvement Notice. In respect of Item 3 such remedial works that the Applicant had carried out were incomplete in any event because the flank wall perimeter was still too low. Item 5 (Relevant hazards: Damp and Mould Category One; Falls on the Level Category Two) 12 Item 9 (Relevant hazards: Damp and Mould Category One)[71]The Tribunal noted on our inspection that the surface of the second floor balcony accessible from this bedroom remained loose (Item 5), and that movement on the adjacent floor within the bedroom was observable (Item 9). Mr Santos gave evidence that he had replaced the membrane on the balcony, but that he had not carried out works to the balcony underneath the membrane which would address the movement either on the balcony or in the bedroom. The Tribunal's decision is that the Respondent was correct to identify Items 5 and 9 at the relevant date and to include them in the Improvement Notice. The identified hazards remained at the date of the inspection. Item 6 (Relevant hazard: Damp and Mould Category One) Item 7 (Relevant hazard: Excess Cold Category One) Mr Oatt's evidence was that thermal imaging revealed evidence of damp and mould in the kitchen (Item 6) which should be remedied by renewing defective plaster and associated works. The Tribunal was not convinced as to the extent of damp and mould to be found within the kitchen. The pictures exhibited to Mr Oatt's witness statement do not clearly evidence this hazard (over and above the thermal images which are not – in the Tribunal's view – determinative). The Tribunal did not observe any mould in the kitchen on our inspection. Similarly, although the thermal images do show a cold spot in the living room (Item 7; see page 136 of the Respondent's bundle), this appeared to the Tribunal to be evidence of a leak from the floor above rather than evidence of excess cold in the living room. The Tribunal's decision is that Items 6 and 7 should be removed from the Improvement Notice. These are more properly identified as cosmetic remedial works that may be required after other necessary works have been complied with, rather than matters which are necessary to remedy or reduce the hazard identified. Item 8 (Relevant hazards: Damp and Mould Category One; Excess Cold Category One)[72]Mr Oatt's evidence was that the French doors in the second-floor bedrooms suffered from Category One hazards for Damp and Mould and Excess Cold, and that these hazards should be abated by remedial works to those doors. 13[73]Mr Glausiusz's evidence was that the works had already been completed, and he referred us to the photograph at page 98 of the Applicant's bundle which appeared to show some draught-excluding strips that were added to a door.[75]On the date of the inspection the Tribunal did not observe damp and mould in these bedrooms, however the doors were draughty and ill fitting and appeared to require adjustment. On balance the Tribunal was satisfied that the works at Item 8 were appropriate and at the relevant date the hazards identified in respect of Item 8 existed. To the extent that the Applicant has carried out some remedial works, the Tribunal was not satisfied that they were in place by the relevant date. Items 10, 11 and 12 (Relevant hazards: Damp and Mould Category One; Falls on the Level Category Two (stated as Category One))[79]Mr Oatt accepted that the reference to Category One for Falls on the Level for these Items was incorrect and should rightly be amended to Category Two. Mr Oatt took the Tribunal to the photographs at pages 136 to 138 of the Respondent's bundle. He also gave oral evidence that he had observed water coming into the living room when the tenants put the shower on for a reasonably long period. Mr Glausiusz's evidence was that the issues with the shower leaking had been remedied, and he took the Tribunal to the statements of Mr Santos which stated that the sealant around the shower tray had been renewed. Mr Glausiusz's position was that Items 10, 11 and 12 were complete. The Tribunal's decision is that the Respondent was correct to identify Items 10, 11 and 12 at the relevant date and to include them in the Improvement Notice. Further the Tribunal accepts Mr Oatt's evidence that any remedial works that the Applicant has carried out since the date of the Improvement Notice have been ineffective, and that the works specified at Items 10, 11 and 12 are appropriate. Item 13 (Relevant hazards: Damp and Mould Category One)[80]Mr Glausiusz's evidence was that the bathroom had a large window which, if opened, was more than sufficient to ventilate any water vapours. 14[81]Mr Oatt did, in due course, concede this point and agreed the issue could have been dealt with in a less intrusive way than by the service of an Improvement Notice.[83]Notwithstanding Mr Oatt's concession, Mr Crossley argued in closing submissions that the Tribunal should still uphold this hazard and Item[13]The Tribunal's decision is that Mr Oatt's concession was appropriate and correct. The Tribunal's decision is that a Category One hazard was not present at the date of the Improvement Notice and that Item 13 should be removed. Item 14 (Relevant hazards: Damp and Mould Category One)[86]Mr Oatt's evidence was that a Category One hazard existed in relation to damp and mould in the kitchen of the Property, and mechanical extraction should be installed. Mr Glausiusz's evidence was that there was no mould in the kitchen, and that a window – albeit smaller than the window in the bathroom – could be opened to allow for ventilation if necessary. Mr Glausiusz also submitted that the tenant's lack of use of the oven, and reliance on the gas stove alone may contribute to any issues. The Tribunal does not take into account Mr Glausiusz's submissions on the tenants' behaviour. However, as set out above, the Tribunal was not convinced as to the extent of damp and mould to be found within the kitchen nor did the Tribunal observe any mould on our inspection. The Tribunal was not convinced that Item 14 was necessary at the date of the Improvement Notice. Item 14 should therefore be removed. Items 15 and 16 (Relevant hazard: Fire Safety Category Two)[89]Mr Oatt's evidence on the fire detection system at the Property was, in places, unclear. He gave oral evidence that he had noted old, standalone smoke detectors in the Property and he was therefore not satisfied that the Property benefited from the required mains linked smoke detection. However, Mr Oatt's inspection report confirms at page 131 of the Respondent's bundle that the Property "has mains link smoke detection for early warning of fire". Mr Glausiusz's oral evidence was that a mains link smoke detection system was in place, and had been at the date of the Improvement Notice. A picture of a relatively modern looking control panel for a fire detection system can be seen at page 86 of the Respondent's bundle as part of a 15 Licensing Inspection Report dated 2 May 2025, although the relatively modern appearance of the panel is of course not determinative.[91]On the basis of the relatively limited evidence in front of the Tribunal, Mr Glausiusz's evidence is preferred and the Tribunal's decision is that Item 15 of the Improvement Notice should be removed. Mr Oatt also gave evidence that he had not been provided with the relevant certificates evidencing that the installation had been carried out by a "competent person". Mr Glausiusz did not object to providing the necessary certificates, and the Tribunal is of the view that it would be appropriate to do so. Accordingly Item 16 remains undisturbed, insofar as it relates to the installation identified at Item 15. Item 17 (Relevant hazard: Fire Safety Category Two)[93]Mr Glausiusz's evidence was that self-closing devices had been installed on the kitchen door, although it was not clear on what date he was asserting this had been remedied. His evidence was that the tenants must be removing the self-closers. The Tribunal's decision is that the Respondent was correct to identify Item 17 at the relevant date and to include it in the Improvement Notice. If the tenants are responsible for the self-closers being removed, the Applicant should consider enforcing the terms of the tenancy agreement. Item 18 (Relevant hazard: Domestic Hygiene Pests and Refuse Category One)[97]Mr Oatt's evidence was that recent fresh mouse droppings were found in the kitchen and in the eaves of the third floor. Item 18 requires the Applicant to arrange for pest control to identify entry points that allow mice access to the Property. Mr Glausiusz's evidence was that he had instructed his contractors to deal with the mice and pointed to invoices for bait boxes (page 79) and pictures of the bait boxes (page 81 and 93) within the Applicant's bundle. Mr Crossley put it to Mr Glausiusz that the invoices only referred to 42 Hamlet Court (i.e. the building, rather than the Property) and the pictures were not sufficiently clear to show if the bait boxes were utilised for the Property or simply the external / common parts of the Building. Mr Glausiusz objected to the contention that mice could enter into the Property through the external walls of the building at first floor level into the kitchen. He stated that he felt he had done everything necessary to deal with mice in the Property, and that Item 18 requiring him to identify and fill any access points for mice was excessive and unnecessary. 16[98]The Tribunal also observed two other relevant points during the inspection. The first is that a large amount of rubbish was present to the rear of the building. Such rubbish would be likely to attract vermin including mice.[99]The second point was that the tenants of the Property kept a lot of plants, and there were seeds present on the third floor in easily accessible places. Both of these matters would be liable to increase the likelihood of mice being attracted to the Property. To the extent that the tenants are increasing the risk of mice by allowing for seeds and food to be easily accessible, the Applicant should consider its enforcement options under the tenancy agreement.[100]The Tribunal did not accept Mr Glausiusz's position that Item 18 was excessive. The works set out at Item 18 were necessary to deal with the relevant hazard in relation to pests. The Tribunal's decision is that the Respondent was correct to identify Item 18 at the relevant date and to include it in the Improvement Notice. Item 19 (Relevant hazard: Damp and Mould Category One)[101]Item 19 is expressed as a "catch-all" set of works that all affected areas should be treated for mould after completion of the remedial works carried out.[102]The Tribunal's decision is that Item 19 should be removed from the Improvement Notice. These are more properly identified as cosmetic remedial works that may be required after other necessary works have been complied with, rather than matters which are necessary to remedy or reduce the hazard identified.[103]Items 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 18 above include some aspect of "examination" or "investigation". Applying Curd v Liverpool City Council to each of those Items, the Tribunal is satisfied that they are each investigation as to the scope or extent of a hazard or remedial works required and that a hazard had been identified, and as such are permissible.[104]The Tribunal therefore varies the Improvement Notice as set out above.[105]The Tribunal is mindful that the timescale for works would have expired on 9 April 2026. Time has been paused pending this appeal. The Tribunal considers it reasonable to allow a period of three months from the date of this decision to complete the remedial works in accordance with the Improvement Notice as varied by this decision. 17 Name: Judge R. Boucher Date: 20 July 2026 Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). 18