18 Trafford, Allerdene, Gateshead NE9 6LG MAN/00CH/HNA/2023/0052
DECISION
[37]The Tribunal considered carefully the evidence put before it and the submis-sions of both parties.[38]The Tribunal considered that the Respondent had carried out a thorough in-vestigation and followed their procedures diligently.[39]The Applicant had objected to some of the Respondent's findings, in respect of the double glazed units, and the smoke alarm, but he had nevertheless completed the works the Respondent had requested, rather than submitting an appeal.[40]His agent had written to the Respondent on the 29th June to report on pro-gress of the works and to explain that there was an intention to allow the roof space to dry out for a period before reinstating the insulation, which would also allow the noise of rodent infestation to be better heard.[41]The Respondent wrote back that same day to the agent to say "Great, thanks Claire".[42]This was the last communication between the parties on the issue. There was nothing in the correspondence from the agent that said the insulation would be reinstated before the 22nd August; there was nothing in the email from the Respondent to suggest that the notice would be suspended. The Applicant had carried out the majority of the works; but not this final aspect.[43]In her evidence, Ms. Elmer readily admitted she might have agreed an exten-sion of time on the notice; but she would not have agreed an extension until November, when the weather was likely to be cold.[44]On the Applicant's written evidence, the works were completed on the 11th October, which was 50 days after the due date.[45]The Applicant did appear to take the Improvement Notice seriously. He car-ried out the works, and informed the Respondent that he was going to delay the reinstallation of the insulation. There was no response to this suggestion other than a thank you, and "great"; which may have allowed him a false sense of security.[46]The Notice still existed; but had Ms. Elmer responded to the agent to say the deadline would still be in force, it is likely the situation could have been avoided.[47]The Applicant had had a lot to contend with in terms of storm damage, and the installation of a new roof, and had carried out the majority of the work. The final aspect of the work was relatively small, being a couple of hours work and the provision of insulation materials.[48]The Applicant was in breach of the Improvement Notice, and the Respondent was correct to find this.[49]The Tribunal using the Respondent's scoring matrix would place the offence in the Low Culpability Band, with little fault on the landlord. The decision to delay installation of insulation to allow a property that had suffered serious storm damage was in the Tribunal's opinion within the bounds of reasonable decision making.[50]The Applicant's downfall was to not fully communicate with the Respondent; but that worked both ways, and the response made by the Respondent might have conceivably led him to understand that the Respondent agreed with his actions.[51]The Tribunal found the amount of the fine to be high in the circumstances. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent's assessment that the Applicant was on the low level of culpability (the Applicant did not fall short of his legal du-ties) and there was no harm to the tenant. The Tribunal found the Applicant to be generally a responsible landlord, but in terms of compliance with the conditions of the licence his administration and paperwork was not up to date and the breach was committed.[52]Taking into account all of the circumstances, the Tribunal reduces the finan-cial penalty to £1966.67. J N Murray Tribunal Judge 31 January 2025