Tribunal Judge A DaviesA Ramshaw MRICSDate 12 September 2025Property: 13a WOODVIEW ROAD, LEEDSType of application: Appeal against Prohibition Notice, paragraph 7, schedule 2 to the Housing Act 2004
DECISION
The Prohibition Order dated 28 May 2024 is confirmed.
REASONS
[1]The Applicant is the freehold owner of a back to back house known as 13 Woodview Road, Beeston, Leeds. The house has a self-contained basement known as 13a Woodview Road (“the property”).[2]On 8 February 2024 officers of the Respondent inspected the property, which had been vacated on the same day by two tenants. The Respondent identified two category 1 hazards at the property, and a number of category 2 hazards. Since it was impossible to remedy the category 1 hazard: lack of space, the Respondent, after observing all statutory and internal procedures, issued a Prohibition Order on 28 May 2024.[3]On 25 June 2024 the Applicant appealed against the Prohibition Order. His appeal was heard on 12 September 2025 following an inspection of the property the same morning. THE ALLEGED HAZARDS[4]The category 1 hazards were(1) lack of space in the property and(2) excess cold resulting from the lack of a fixed heater in the bathroom.[5]The category 2 hazards identified by the Respondent were(1) insufficient natural light(2) damp and mould(3) fire hazard, in that the battery-operated detector was not interlinked to a fire detection system in the house above the property. There was also no separate heat detector present in the kitchen alcove(4) operability of amenities, ie the kitchen was too small for safe use of the cooker and washing machine and the bathroom was too small for safe use(5) personal hygiene: the basin in the bathroom was suitable only for hand washing and there was no space available for drying clothes, and finally(6) food safety and(7) falls associated with the shower – both these hazards being said to arise from the lack of space. THE LAW[6]Paragraph 7 at Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 2004 enables a landlord to appeal to the Tribunal against a Prohibition Order.[7]Paragraph 11 provides that the appeal shall be by way of a re-hearing but may be determined having regard to matters of which the local housing authority were unaware when the order was made. Paragraph 13(2) provides that the tribunal may by order confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the housing authority. INSPECTION[8]The Tribunal inspected the property in the presence of the Applicant and his brother Mr Osman Rafiq, officers of the Respondent and the Respondent’s counsel Mr Rafferty.[9]Access to the property is from the front yard of 12 Woodview Road down 7 or 8 steps to an area off which is a glazed door to the basement and a small window. The brick wall facing the basement is approximately one meter from the window and door. Consequently the property receives very little natural light at any time of day.[10]The property consists of a single room with an alcove kitchen and a small shower room/WC. The damp marks on the wall which were photographed by the Respondent in February 2024 were not present at the inspection. A small wall heater had been installed in the bathroom. At the time of the inspection the property was unfurnished. The Tribunal were told that the property had not been occupied as a residence since February 2024. THE HEARING[11]At the hearing the Applicant was represented by Mr Osman Rafiq and the Respondent was represented by Mr Rafferty of counsel. The Tribunal had the benefit of a comprehensive bundle of documents, including CAD drawings of the property, the measurements taken by the Respondent’s witness Miss Hutchison, and the HHSRS guidance and codes of practice relied upon by the Respondent in assessing risks to health and safety. THE RESPONDENT’S CASE[12]The Respondent’s case was presented by its Principal Housing Officer Miss Hutchison. The Respondent relied upon the lack of space to justify the Prohibition Order, since there were no means by which the Applicant could expand the living area of the property.[13]Miss Hutchison had measured the property at 15.76m2 plus the bathroom which was measured at 1.57m2. The Respondent’s Crowding and Space guidance “suggests a single room serving all household functions (except toilet and bathing facilities) should have a minimum floor area of at least 25m2”.[14]Mr Osman Rafiq’s cross-examination related solely to the Respondent’s general policy in relation to basement homes such as the property. Mr Osman wanted to know why the property had been singled out when, he claimed, some 90% of properties in the area had similar self-contained basement flats which were permitted by the Respondent. Miss Hutchison confirmed that she was unable to speak for the decisions of other housing officers, and that there had been no discrimination in the decision to make the Prohibition Order. THE APPLICANT’S CASE[15]Mr Razwan Rafiq had served a short statement and gave evidence in support of it. He said that he felt discriminated against by the Respondent because he was aware of other smaller basement flats in the area. He told the Tribunal that he had been letting the basement since he bought 13 Woodview Road in 2008, and the basement and the house above had been assessed for council tax separately throughout. He said that he had provided a “bright, warm, safe space” for his tenants, who had never complained. He said that he thought that the property measured 25m2. Mr Rafiq did not produce evidence in support of this measurement. He also produced to the Tribunal an Energy Performance Certificate which gave the area of the property as 40m2.[16]Speaking for the Applicant, Mr Osman Rafiq said that he did not consider it fair that the HHSRS standards were applied to old properties, or that a Prohibition Order had been made in respect of the property when there were many other, smaller properties being let in the area. CONCLUSION[17]The Applicant was an unreliable witness. Further, he raised no relevant ground for appealing against the Prohibition Order.[18]The Respondent’s measurements are accepted as accurate. With reference to national and local living space guidelines and the Tribunal’s own assessment on inspection, the size of the property is inadequate to provide a tenant with a safe and healthy lifestyle. Further, the lack of natural light is in the opinion of the Tribunal a hazard to the mental health of anyone living at the property.[19]There is no possibility of extending the size of the property and therefore the only enforcement action available to the Respondent was a Prohibition Order. The order is confirmed, as the property is unsuitable for use as a residence.