35 Wicksteed House LON/00BE/HML/2021/0002
DECISION
[29]The tribunal has no hesitation in dismissing this appeal. The Appellant is in effect challenging the Respondent’s decision to set its own standards rather than simply relying on the standards in the regulations. Arguably such a challenge should have been brought by way of judicial review rather than in the First-Tier Tribunal. It is not the first time that the Appellant has brought a challenge against the Respondent’s standards and the First-Tier Tribunal has previously upheld those standards. This ought to have militated against the Appellant bringing this challenge. Whilst it is correct that each case must be decided on its own merit the challenge here is against the standards themselves not against the imposition of those standards in a particular case.[30]It is entirely correct that a local authority can impose its own space standards over and above those imposed nationally. The local authority is best fixed to do this because its officers have detailed local knowledge of the area in which they are operating. None of the arguments put forward by the Appellant came close to challenging the authorities decision to impose their own standards.[31]As indicated previously the Tribunal expressed real concern about the safety of the kitchen at the premises in circumstances in which five individuals are occupying. Although the premises were used previously as a single unit for up to 5 people this is very different from an HMO where individuals are expected to share facilities. Mr Fitzgerald did not seem to acknowledge the risk to the occupiers of using a very small kitchen at the same time. In addition, all of the rooms at the premises were below the local authority’s own standards and yet the local authority had shown some flexibility in allowing three of the rooms to be used.[32]The Tribunal understands that the Appellant has a number of properties in London and possibly elsewhere. It is hoped that he will consider this decision closely and in future will manage his properties accordingly. It matters not whether the flats he is managing are in good condition and well provided in terms of facilities if the space standards are simply insufficient for the number of people using those facilities.[33]The tribunal was also not impressed by the arguments of Mr Fitzgerald in relation to the reduction in social housing available. Whilst homelessness in London is undoubtedly a problem it is not the answer to allow landlords to pack people into flats without proper concern as to the safety and practicality of using those premises as a home.[34]Accordingly without any hesitation the appeal is dismissed. If the parties wish to make any costs submissions they should do so within 14 days of receiving this judgement. Judge Shepherd August 2021 ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions[1]A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional tribunal office which has been dealing with the case.[2]The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional tribunal office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.[3]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.[4]The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers[5]Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.