Below is a summary of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System appeals to both the Upper Tribunal and the Residential Property Tribunal.
Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Patel [2010] UKUT 334 (LC)
Clarify that an assessment under the Housing Health and Safety System is based on a "relevant occupier", not the "actual occupier". Also, A score of 31600 for an excess cold was described as "remarkably high".
The central part of the case was when emergency remedial action might occur. It may be done when there is an "imminent risk" of "serious harm".
Serious harm relates to the higher classes of harm used in the HHSRS calculation, and imminent risk means "a good chance that the harm will be suffered in the near future."
Hanlet v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [2010] UKUT 351 (LC)
If something complies with building regulations (or could easily be made to comply), this is a "material consideration" for a tribunal in deciding whether a hazard requires attention. It should be noted it's equally not definitive that something which complies with building regulations may also nonetheless be a hazard.
Liverpool City Council v Kassim [2011] UKUT 169 (LC)
The landlord Anwar Hadi Kassim had installed electric panel heaters contrary to Liverpool City Council's advice. The local authority presumably served an improvement notice seeking to replace the heating with something less expensive to run for the tenant.
The local authority showed that for a two-bedroom house, the heating and hot water via electric panel heaters like those installed by the landlord on a standard tariff would cost on average £1826 per year.
With modern fan-assisted storage radiators on Economy 7 tariff, the cost
