73 Toxteth Street, Openshaw, Manchester M11 1EQ MAN/00BN/HIN/2024/0030
DECISION
[60]The Tribunal considered carefully the evidence of both parties.[61]The Applicant found herself in a difficult situation trying to manage a fairly complex situation from a different city, having taken over responsibility for the former family home from her brother.[62]From the evidence the Tribunal heard and saw, the Property had been allowed to deteriorate for some time. The roof was in poor condition leading to leaks. There looked to have been little work carried out over a long period of time, and in all likelihood little or no property management of the occupancy by the tenant and the subsequent occupier.[63]The Tribunal considered that there was evidence of damage by the tenant /occupier of misuse/neglect, leading to damage to doors, and staircase spindles, and condensation dampness from washing being dried on radiators. The Tribunal considered that it was unlikely the radiators would simply fall off walls unless they had been subject to an element of force.[64]The Applicant had found it difficult to get a response from the occupant. She found it difficult to arrange contractors to give quotes or accept instructions because of the cluttered condition of the property. She said that she had wanted to carry out improvements to the Property simultaneously to the works under Notice, to avoid duplication of costs. These issues had led to delays.[65]The Tribunal had some sympathy with her position. She had not sought to avoid doing the works, but needed time to raise funding and organise the works, and was endeavouring to do this from Birmingham, with little communication from the occupier.[66]The Applicant did not dispute the works, or the notice, just the time frame she was afforded to complete them. She never suggested a different time frame and even at the hearing was unable to put a time frame on this.[67]The Tribunal found that there was some evidence of tenant misuse/neglect. This would not necessarily mean a delay in attending to hazards. Enforcing any breach of tenancy by the Occupant, including reimbursement for any damage would be a matter of property management for the Applicant.[68]From the evidence the Tribunal heard, the Respondent would in all likelihood have agreed to an extended time limit during conversations in November, but the Applicant did not offer a time frame, and seemed to be labouring under the misunderstanding that this appeal would in some way "pause" the notice. She had no way of knowing at that stage that the hearing would not take place until some months later.[69]But whilst sympathetic to the Applicant's position, as she recognised by her acceptance that the works were necessary, being a Landlord carries responsibilities. The condition of the Property was hazardous to the occupiers. The Applicant had a channel of communication with the Occupiers through both her brother, and the Local Authority.[70]Some 42 weeks later, the Property still has hazards.[71]The Tribunal does not operate with hindsight; it places itself in the position of the Respondent at the time of service of the Notice when determining if the Notice should stand, be quashed, or varied.[72]The Tribunal finds that the Respondent was right to impose an Improvement Notice, the contents of which are not challenged by the Applicant, other than some items of tenant damage (which she has since addressed).[73]The Applicant put forward a number of reasons for needing more time; her distance from the Property, tenant damage and neglect, communication issues between her and the occupant, and affordability. The Tribunal does not consider these pertinent to the appeal for the following reasons:a. The Applicant could have appointed a local agent (and had informally done this, through her brother).b. Any tenant/damage neglect was not a reason to delay carrying out improvements.c. Any communication issues could have been resolved through the Respondent/the Applicant's brother.[74]The Tribunal determined that there was evidence that the Property would be difficult to work in, and that it would have been difficult to find tradespeople to work in such conditions, at a time in the market when tradespeople can to an extent pick and choose work. The Tribunal's own experience is that even large social landlords can find it difficult to execute repair works, even when required by Court order.[75]Taking all the evidence and circumstances into account, the Tribunal determines that the Improvement Notice should stand, but the following paragraph should be substituted in place of paragraph 6 : YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED under section 13 of the Act to complete the remedial action specified in Schedule 2 of this notice to remedy the hazard(s) listed in Schedule 1 of this notice and to begin them on the 12th June 2024, and to complete the remedial action within 16 weeks. J N Murray Tribunal Judge 1 April 2025