Loading Guild Resources
Loading Guild Resources
Loading Guild Resources
Birmingham City Council failed to order a management company and the flat owner to repair a vulnerable and blind woman’s home because housing officers were concerned about the repercussions if the freeholder and leaseholder challenged their decision.
Instead, they issued an order prohibiting the tenant, Rebecca Allmark, from residing in the rented flat because the bathroom floor was at risk of collapse due to damage caused by a leaking toilet.
The council was told that the freeholder, Blue Property Investment UK, and the flat owner, the estate of the deceased landlord Peter Grimes, claimed that the repair was not their responsibility or that no funds were available to carry out the £2,900 repair.
However, the leases clearly stated Blue Property Investment UK was responsible for keeping the building in a good state of repair, and the estate of Peter Grimes was responsible for maintaining the flat.
The council team decided that it was unclear who should pay for the repairs without referring to the leases and tenancy agreements to the council’s legal team.
Miss Allmark applied to the tribunal to quash the prohibition order. She felt the best course of action would have been to serve an improvement notice on Blue Property Investment UK and the Grimes estate, as they were both obliged to maintain the building in a good state of repair. An improvement notice would also let the council prosecute for non-compliance or to carry out the works themselves at the owner’s cost.
The prohibition order would effectively end Miss Allmark’s 17 years of independent living in Handsworth Wood Road and sever her connections with a local network of carers.
The shocking decision-making by Birmingham City Council was highlighted by First-Tier Tribunal (Property) judge Diana Barlow, who commented: “These are not difficult issues for one of the largest city councils in Europe, with a sizable legal team at its disposal, and a budget reputedly in excess of £3 billion. The internal restrictions the council has placed on expenditure are not relevant. As correctly pointed out by Miss Williams, the Section 114 notice does not affect the council’s statutory duties. What the council does with its budget is a matter of choice.
“The council had no reasonable grounds on which to assume the freeholder would challenge an improvement notice. Its liability was clear on the face of the lease, and the council was wrong to make assumptions without clarifying the legal position with its own legal department. The freeholder should have been served with an enforcement notice. In any event a property owners’ reluctance to comply with a notice is not a reason to let it off the hook. Particularly when in doing so the needs of a vulnerable occupier are ignored.”
The judgment added that the council was wrong to prejudge the position or make assumptions about the possible arguments the freeholder and flat owners might advance.
The tribunal also accused the council of failing to 'properly consider’ Miss Allmark’s views, circumstances and vulnerabilities.