98 George Williams Way, Colchester, Essex, CO1 2JZ : CAM/22UG/HIN/2025/0019 CAM/22UG/HIN/2025/0019

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No CAM/22UG/HIN/2025/0019

Between

Temitayo Bolanle AriyoApplicant

Colchester City CouncilRespondent

Before

Regional Surveyor

Mary Hardman

: : : for the Applicant

: : : for the Respondent

Date 22 July 2026

Hearing 2026-07-15

Property: Essex, CO1 2JZ Olushola Abodunrin Ogunyemi and

Type of application: Section 12 and paragraphs 10-12 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2004 Judge Bernadette MacQueen

DECISION

[1]The improvement notice dated 29 July 2025 in respect of the Property is confirmed.

[2]The sum of £645, being the charge levied by the Respondent in respect of the cost of serving the improvement notice, remains payable.

REASONS

[1]This application is an appeal under Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2004 (the 2004 Act) against an improvement notice dated 29 July 2025 (the Improvement Notice). The appeal application was received by the Tribunal on 19 August 2025, within the 21-day time limit under paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 to the 2004 Act. The Background

[5]The Applicant is the landlord of 98 George Williams Way, Colchester, Essex CO1 2JZ (“the Property”). The Property is a mid-terrace, three storey house constructed in or around the 2000s. It comprises a bedroom, a shared kitchen/dining room, and a WC on the ground floor; a bedroom, a shared living room, and a shared bathroom on the first floor; and two further bedrooms on the second floor, one of which has an en-suite bathroom. The Property is let to tenants. On 29 July 2025, the Respondent served the Improvement Notice on the Applicant pursuant to section 12 of the Housing Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”). The notice identified a Category 2 fire hazard at the Property. On 19 August 2025, the Applicant lodged this appeal. The Applicant contends, amongst other things, that the Respondent carried out an erroneous risk assessment and applied the incorrect LACORS guidance. In particular, the Applicant submits that the Respondent assessed the Property and specified the required remedial works on the basis that it was a “bedsit-style” house in multiple occupation. The Applicant's position is that the Property is a shared house occupied under the terms of an assured shorthold tenancy and operated as a single household. The Applicant further submits that the remedial works required by the improvement notice are inappropriate because they stem from an incorrect classification of the Property. The Applicant contends that, had the Property been correctly categorised, the alleged fire hazard would have been assessed differently and the works specified in the notice would have been different. In his written documents, the Applicant submits that the Respondent ought not to have served an improvement notice and should instead have sought to address any concerns through informal engagement before resorting to formal enforcement action. However, at 2 the hearing, the Applicant accepted the service of the Improvement Notice.

[7]The Applicant also seeks the cancellation or reduction of the £645 administration charge levied by the Respondent pursuant to section 49 of the Housing Act 2004 in respect of the service of the Improvement Notice. By directions dated 7 October 2025, the Tribunal made case management directions requiring the Respondent to prepare a bundle of relevant documents, the Applicant to serve an answering bundle, and the Respondent to provide any reply to the Applicant’s bundle. The Hearing and Inspection

[9]The Tribunal’s inspection and the hearing took place on 15 July 2026. We inspected the Property at 10:00 am, accompanied by the parties, and thereafter conducted the hearing at the Holiday Inn, Colchester. The Applicant, Olushola Abodunrin Ogunyemi, appeared in person. Temitayo Bolanle Ariyo did not appear. The Respondent was represented by Victoria Jempson. Daniel Ward, an Environmental Health Officer employed by the Respondent, attended the hearing and gave oral evidence on the Respondent’s behalf. We had before us a hearing bundle prepared by the Respondent comprising 426 pages, together with a copy of the LACORS Housing – Fire Safety Guidance and the Respondent’s Private Sector Housing Enforcement and Civil Penalties Policy (Version 7, last reviewed in September 2023). The Applicant also provided a bundle of documents which, although not sequentially paginated, was organised into seven sections. In addition, the Respondent submitted a reply bundle comprising nine pages. The Respondent’s Position (Colchester City Council)

[10]Daniel Ward stated in his witness statement dated 10 November 2025, and confirmed in his oral evidence, that on 11 March 2025 he carried out an inspection of the Property using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (“HHSRS”).

[11]Daniel Ward assessed the Property as a three-storey, post-1979 mid terrace house occupied as a four-bedsit House in Multiple Occupation (“HMO”), comprising a shared kitchen used by four occupants and a shared bathroom and WC used by three occupants. He concluded that the Property was being operated as a bedsit-style HMO. He explained that he reached this conclusion for a number of reasons. In particular, the bedroom doors were fitted with locks so that the occupiers did not enjoy exclusive possession of all parts of the Property. He also relied upon information obtained from one of the occupiers, Natalia, who informed him that she had recently moved into the Property after finding the accommodation through the website SpareRoom.co.uk. Natalia stated that she was not related to, and did not previously know, any of the other occupiers. 3

[12]Daniel Ward therefore assessed the risks at the Property on the basis that it was being used as a bedsit-style HMO. Applying the HHSRS, he assessed the fire hazard as a Band E Category 2 hazard. Screenshots of the assessment were exhibited to his witness statement (DCW13, pages 166 173 of the Respondent’s bundle). In his oral evidence, Daniel Ward explained how he identified the deficiencies present at the Property and then applied the HHSRS Operating Guidance to determine the likelihood and severity of potential harm outcomes. He concluded that the identified deficiencies increased both the likelihood of a fire occurring and the probability of more serious consequences should a fire occur. Daniel Ward confirmed that he relied upon the LACORS Fire Safety Guidance relating to a “bedsit-type HMO, three or four storeys” when specifying the remedial works required.

[13]Following his assessment, Daniel Ward stated that on 27 March 2025 he sent a consultation letter to the Applicant enclosing a schedule of remedial works and inviting observations on both the proposed works and the timescales for completion. The Applicant was afforded the opportunity to propose alternative measures capable of achieving the same outcome. A period of 28 days was provided for written representations. The letter explained that, in the absence of a satisfactory response, the Council would consider formal enforcement action, most likely by way of an Improvement Notice. It also advised that an administrative charge of £645 might be imposed.

[14]Daniel Ward told us that, although correspondence was exchanged following service of the consultation letter, the Applicant did not provide a substantive response to the schedule of works or address the proposed timescales for remedying the identified HHSRS deficiencies. Following a reminder from the Respondent, the Applicant informed the Council on 7 May 2025 that all of the required works had been completed.

[15]On 17 July 2025, Daniel Ward carried out a further inspection of the Property and concluded that the works set out in the schedule had not, in fact, been completed. As a result, the Respondent served an Improvement Notice on 29 July 2025. The defects identified at the Property were specified in Schedule 1, while the remedial works required were detailed in Schedule 2 of the Improvement Notice. The Improvement Notice required the works to commence by 26 August 2025. It also set specific deadlines for particular items: the provision of a fire blanket within seven days (2 September 2025); completion of works relating to the fire doors and cupboard fire door within 60 days (by 25 October 2025); and installation of a Grade A LD2 fire detection and alarm system within 90 days (by 24 November 2025).

[16]Daniel Ward further stated that, even if the Property were properly classified as a shared-house rather than a bedsit-type HMO, the existing fire precautions would nonetheless fall below the standards expected under the LACORS Fire Safety Guidance. 4

[17]Daniel Ward confirmed that, in deciding to serve the Improvement Notice, he had regard to the Respondent’s Private Sector Housing Enforcement and Civil Penalties Policy. Having done so, he considered the service of an Improvement Notice to be the most appropriate and proportionate enforcement response in the circumstances.

[18]In response to the Applicant’s observation that he had incorrectly described the Property as “post-1979”, Daniel Ward explained that, although the Property was constructed in or around 2000, it fell within the “post-1979” category for HHSRS assessment purposes. Whilst he understood why the Applicant regarded the description as inaccurate, he confirmed that it reflected the relevant HHSRS classification rather than the actual year of construction. The Applicant’s Position

[19]The Applicant submitted that the Respondent had incorrectly classified the Property as a bedsit-style HMO rather than as a shared house occupied under a “joint and several assured shorthold tenancy”. He contended that this misclassification had resulted in an incorrect assessment of risk and, consequently, in inappropriate remedial works being specified in the Improvement Notice. In support of this position, the Applicant relied upon a copy of an assured shorthold tenancy agreement dated 4 December 2024, which the Applicant maintained was the agreement under which the Property was occupied as a shared house. A copy of that agreement appears at pages 407 to 417 of the Respondent’s bundle. He said that this demonstrated that the Property was let to four individuals under a single tenancy agreement. The Applicant explained that when one tenant moved out, the replacement tenant "joined the existing tenancy" and occupied the Property on the same basis and under the same tenancy arrangement, such that the occupiers formed a single household.

[20]The Applicant's position was that, because the Property had been incorrectly categorised, the remedial works required in the Improvement Notice were neither necessary nor proportionate. In particular, he disputed the requirement to install a Grade A LD2 fire detection and alarm system. He submitted that the Property was already fitted with a Grade D LD2 interlinked system and asserted that a "competent person" had advised him that the existing system exceeded the requirements of the LACORS guidance. However, the Applicant did not produce any witness statement, report, or other evidence from that individual or otherwise to support that position. He further contended that the remaining remedial works were unnecessary because the Property more than satisfied the standards applicable to a shared house.

[21]In his written representations, the Applicant argued that the Respondent should have adopted a less formal enforcement approach, such as issuing a Hazard Awareness Notice or a Suspended Improvement Notice. However, during the hearing, he accepted that the service of an Improvement Notice was appropriate and confined his position to the nature and extent of the remedial works required. 5

[22]In relation to the remedial works, the Applicant submitted that a simplified schedule of works accompanied by revised compliance timescales would be more appropriate. He argued that this would provide sufficient time both to prepare the tenants for the proposed works and to arrange for suitably qualified contractors to carry them out.

[23]Finally, the Applicant submitted that the administrative charge of £645 was excessive and should not be payable.

[24]During cross-examination, the Applicant was asked why not all of the occupiers residing at the Property at the time the Improvement Notice was served were named as tenants in the tenancy agreement dated 4 December 2024. The agreement identified Jessica, Paulina, Syeda and Georgia as the tenants. However, the Applicant accepted that, by the date the Improvement Notice was issued, Jessica no longer resided at the Property and Natalia had moved in instead. The Applicant also accepted that not all of the named tenants had signed the tenancy agreement. He explained that tenants did not always sign tenancy agreements. Notwithstanding these matters, the Applicant maintained throughout that there were no individual tenancy agreements in place.

[25]Also in cross-examination, the Applicant was referred to two advertisements contained within the Respondent’s bundle at pages 235 and 359. One advertisement was for a double room in a shared house. The Applicant stated that he was unsure whether the advertisement at page 359 related to the Property. In relation to the advertisement at page 235, he accepted that advertisements related to the Property and had been placed by his wife in order to find a tenant. The Law

[26]An improvement notice is “a notice requiring the person on whom it is served to take such remedial action in respect of the hazard concerned as is specified in the notice” (section 12(2), 2004 Act).

[27]Section 13(2) of the 2004 Act sets out the matters that must be specified in an improvement notice. In particular, the notice must specify the nature of the hazard and the residential premises in which it exists, the deficiency giving rise to the hazard, the premises in relation to which remedial action is required, and the nature of the remedial action to be taken.

[28]Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the 2004 Act provides a scheme for assessing housing conditions by reference to the existence of category 1 and category 2 hazards. This application relates only to a category 2 hazard. A “hazard” is defined in section 2(1), as: “any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling or HMO which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling or HMO or in any building or land in the vicinity (whether the deficiency arises as a result of the construction of any building, an absence of maintenance or repair, or otherwise).” 6

[29]Category 1 and 2 hazards are classified by reference to a numerical score assessed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005 and known as an HHSRS assessment. A category 2 hazard is therefore less serious than a category 1 hazard but it is not simply a defect or deficiency; to be a hazard of either category there must be a “risk of harm … which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling or HMO”.

[30]Category 1 and Category 2 hazards are determined by reference to the numerical score assessed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (“HHSRS”), as prescribed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005. A Category 2 hazard is less serious than a Category 1 hazard. However, a hazard is not simply a defect or deficiency in a property. To constitute either a Category 1 or a Category 2 hazard, there must be a “risk of harm … which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling or HMO”.

[31]Where a local housing authority becomes aware of a Category 2 hazard in residential premises, it has a discretionary power to take enforcement action under section 7(1) of the 2004 Act. The enforcement options available include the service of an improvement notice under section 12 of the 2004 Act in respect of a Category 2 hazard.

[32]Paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2004 provides a right of appeal to this tribunal against an improvement notice. The effect of such an appeal is to suspend the operative date set in the Improvement Notice until the appeal process has been finally determined (section 15(5) and paragraph 19(2) of Schedule 1 to the 2004 Act).

[33]The appeal is by way of a re-hearing and may be determined having regard to matters of which the local housing authority was unaware (paragraph 15(2) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2004). On determining the appeal, the tribunal may confirm, quash or vary the improvement notice (paragraph 15(3) of Schedule 1 to the 2004 Act).

[34]In relation to administrative charges, section 49 of the Housing Act 2004 provides that a local housing authority may make such reasonable charge as it considers appropriate for the purpose of recovering administrative and other expenses incurred in serving an improvement notice.

[35]Section 49(7) of the 2004 Act provides that, where the Tribunal allows an appeal against an improvement notice, it may make such order as it considers appropriate reducing, quashing, or requiring the repayment of any charge imposed in respect of that notice. The Tribunal’s Decision

[36]We confirm the Improvement Notice and the remedial action specified within it. We also confirm the compliance periods for the works required as set out in the Improvement Notice. This means that the remedial actions are to commence within 28 days of the date of this decision. Remedial action 1, namely the installation of a fire blanket, is to be completed within seven days of the start date. We note from our 7 inspection that this work appears to have been completed, although this remains subject to verification by the Respondent. Remedial actions 2 and 3, specified under headings “inspect fire doors” and the “upgrade understairs cupboard fire door”, are to be completed within 60 days of the start date. Remedial action 4, being the installation of a fire detection and alarm system, is to be completed within 90 days of the start date.

[37]We are satisfied that the Respondent correctly assessed the Property as a three-storey, bedsit-type HMO rather than as a shared house as contended by the Applicant. We are further satisfied that the remedial works specified in the Improvement Notice are appropriate and are consistent with the recommendations contained in the LACORS Fire Safety Guidance for a property of that type.

[38]In determining the Property as a three-storey, four-room bedsit type HMO, we accept the evidence of Daniel Ward, who we found to be a credible and reliable witness who gave clear and consistent evidence. We accept Mr Ward's evidence that the occupiers did not enjoy exclusive possession of the Property as a single household. We also accept his evidence that the occupiers did not live as a cohesive group and had not all known each other before taking up occupation.

[39]In reaching this decision we take into account that the Applicant accepted in his oral evidence that advertisements had been placed seeking occupants for individual rooms within the Property. Whilst he suggested that the advertisement at page 359 of the bundle may have related to a different property, he accepted in cross-examination that the Property was advertised in order to find tenants. We also accept Daniel Ward's evidence that Natalia informed him that she found the Property through an advertisement on SpareRoom.co.uk for a room at the Property. We therefore find that the occupiers did not live as a cohesive group, did not all know each other before moving into the Property, and had no control over the selection of replacement tenants.

[40]It was not disputed that locks were fitted to bedroom doors. We accept the evidence of Daniel Ward that this meant that the tenants were not able to access other bedrooms and did not live as a cohesive group. Whilst the Applicant contends that the occupiers had requested these locks and/or installed them themselves, this does not alter the position that the landlord was aware of the locks and had not removed them. Further, as stated above, we accept the evidence of Daniel Ward that rooms within the Property had been advertised.

[41]We do not accept the Applicant’s position that the Property was a shared house let under a single joint assured shorthold tenancy. In support of his contention that the tenants lived under this collective arrangement the Applicant relied on the tenancy agreement dated 4 December 2024. As set out above, this agreement named four people, but at the time the Improvement Notice was issued, only three of those people remained at the Property and had been replaced by another occupant who was not a party to that agreement. We do not accept the Applicant’s position that 8 any new occupier “joined” this assured shorthold tenancy. As set out above, we accepted the Respondent’s evidence that rooms within the Property were advertised, that the occupiers did not know one another before moving into the Property and that they had no control over who moved into the Property.

[42]Accordingly, we find that the Property was not occupied as a shared house but as a bedsit-type HMO. The Respondent was therefore entitled to assess the fire hazard on that basis.

[43]In relation to the assessment of the fire hazard, Daniel Ward gave detailed oral evidence explaining the methodology he adopted when carrying out the HHSRS assessment, which led him to conclude that a Category 2 fire hazard existed at the Property. We found his evidence clear and thorough. In particular, we accept his analysis of the deficiencies identified in the Improvement Notice (pages 68–69 of the Respondent’s bundle) and his conclusion that those deficiencies materially increased both the likelihood of a significant fire occurring and the risk of fire and smoke spreading throughout the Property, owing to the absence of adequate fire detection and early warning measures. We also accept his evidence that those deficiencies increased the potential severity of harm to occupiers in the event of a fire.

[44]Mr Ward further explained how he assessed both the probability of a fire related incident occurring and the likely outcomes should such an incident arise. His calculations and application of the HHSRS methodology were not challenged by the Applicant. Having considered his evidence in its entirety, we are satisfied that the HHSRS assessment was properly carried out and that the Respondent was entitled to conclude that a Category 2 fire hazard existed at the Property.

[45]As to the remedial actions specified in the Improvement Notice, we are satisfied that Daniel Ward correctly applied the LACORS Fire Safety Guidance (in particular, pages 25 and 45) and was entitled to conclude that the Grade D fire detection system installed at the Property was inadequate for a bedsit-type HMO extending over three storeys. We accept his evidence that the LACORS guidance recognises the heightened fire risk associated with multi-storey HMOs and supports the installation of a Grade A fire detection and alarm system in such circumstances. In particular, we accept his evidence as to the significance of the additional features provided by a Grade A system, most notably the inclusion of a control panel, which enables the location of an alarm activation to be identified quickly and enable a more effective emergency response. We are satisfied that these features are of particular importance in a three-storey property as set out within the LACORS guidance.

[46]Whilst the Applicant contended that a Grade A LD2 system was unnecessary, he produced no evidence to support that assertion. In particular, although he referred to advice given by a “competent person” who had inspected the Property, neither a witness statement nor a report 9 from that individual, nor any other evidence setting out the basis of that opinion, was provided.

[47]In relation to the remaining remedial works, the Applicant's challenge was based principally upon his contention that the Property should have been treated as a shared house rather than a bedsit-type HMO. Given our finding that the Property was correctly classified as a bedsit-type HMO, we are satisfied that the Respondent specified remedial works consistent with the LACORS guidance applicable to that category of property.

[48]We are therefore satisfied that each of the remedial works specified in the Improvement Notice is necessary and proportionate to address the identified fire hazard. We also accept the compliance periods set out in the Notice. Having regard to the nature and complexity of the works required, we are satisfied that the timescales allowed are reasonable and provide the Applicant with sufficient time to complete the necessary remedial measures.

[49]Whilst at the hearing the Applicant did not dispute the Respondent’s decision to issue an Improvement Notice, he stated in his written documentation that the Respondent should have taken informal action, issued a hazard awareness notice or suspended the Improvement Notice. We do not accept this position. We are satisfied that issuing the Improvement Notice was in accordance with the Respondent’s enforcement policy. Paragraph 11 of the policy confirms that the Respondent may take enforcement action in relation to Category 2 hazards where they are assessed as high category hazards or where, having regard to national guidance, the identified risks are not adequately controlled. We are satisfied that those criteria were met in this case.

[50]Paragraph 13 of the policy provides that officers should exercise professional judgment in determining the most appropriate enforcement response. We accept Mr Ward's analysis that the service of an Improvement Notice represented the most appropriate and proportionate course of action in the circumstances. In particular, we accept Daniel Ward's assessment that this was a high Category 2 hazard and that, having regard to the LACORS Fire Safety Guidance, the fire risks present at the Property required action.

[51]The Respondent's statement of reasons (page 76 of the bundle) considered the range of enforcement options available, namely taking no action, serving a Hazard Awareness Notice, serving an Improvement Notice or making a Prohibition Order. We accept Daniel Ward's evidence that taking no action was not appropriate given that the Property was occupied and that the fire safety concerns remained unresolved. We likewise accept that an informal approach had already been attempted through the consultation letter dated 27 March 2025 and the follow-up letter dated 7 May 2025, neither of which resulted in meaningful engagement by the Applicant with regard to the HHSRS matters. 10

[52]For the same reasons, we are satisfied that a Hazard Awareness Notice would not have been appropriate. We also accept that there were no circumstances justifying the suspension of an Improvement Notice. Equally, we are satisfied that a Prohibition Order, whether suspended or otherwise, would have been disproportionate in the circumstances given that the identified risks could be adequately addressed by remedial works.

[53]As the appeal against the Improvement Notice has not succeeded, we make no order under section 49(7) of the Housing Act 2004 in relation to the administrative charge levied by the Respondent. That charge therefore remains payable. Name: Judge Bernadette MacQueen Rights of appeal Date: 22 July 2026 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. 11 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). 12