We now have proof that Hull City Council has wasted tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money to attack a private landlord 

David Wood (pictured) bravely represented himself at the Royal Courts of Justice in London against the Hull City Council’s head of legal services and an expert London barrister that Hull City Council employed at the expense of the Hull taxpayer.

This is a difficult case to simplify without giving the full history.

2011   A Hull City Council Enforcement Health Officer (EHO) responding to a complaint from David Wood’s tenant in Flat 4 141 Princes Ave, couldn’t find any disrepair within the his flat so the EHO extended his inspection into an owner occupiers flat below David Wood\'s flat, where he found her ceiling in disrepair    

So rather than asking the owner occupier to repair her ceiling to remove a fire hazard the EHO decided to send a notice to David Wood asking him to re-house his tenant, Remove the bathroom suite, lift the floorboards, remove the plumping and redirect the electrics. He would then need to install the fire retardant material in wire mesh caging between the joists above the ceiling that is in disrepair, and then put everything back before moving the tenants back in.

2012   Naturally David Wood strongly objected against this action, so the Hull City Council’s Enforcement officer served another notice on David Wood asking him to pay for and carry out the much easier and cheaper repair option to the owner occupiers ceiling. As David Wood failed to convince the EHO that he should not be liable for this as the works were required to a property that he did not own, he asked to speak with Hull City Council’s solicitor but they refused and said that if you are not happy, take it to a Tribunal. So he took Hull City Council to the Residential Property tribunal. The Tribunal threw it out on the grounds that the wrong notice had been served

2013   Hull City Council EHO then served a new notice on both the owner-occupier of the flat below and David Wood as jointly responsible for the work and costs. In addition they reintroduced the first repair in the notice as an option to repairing the ceiling. David Wood appealed to The First Tier Tribunal saying that the notice should include only the ceiling repair, and it should be served on owner of the ceiling and that she alone should pay.

2014   The First Tier Tribunal agreed with Hull City Council insofar as they decided that the notice should be served on both parties, however they disagreed with both Hull City Council and David Wood in that this, and all future cases should be based on “who benefits pays” and in this case they deemed that David Wood was the only person to benefit. In addition, they supported Hull City Council and allowed for more than one repair option to be included.

Hull City Council decided not to appeal against their decision, however David Wood appealed to the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber on the same grounds as before, that he should not be held liable for a repair in someone else\'s property, and also that only one repair option should be included in a notice which involves more than one owner

2015   After nearly 4 years of appeals and two tribunals instigated by Hull City Council, the final results from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) are now in

The dispute between David Wood (a private landlord) and Hull City Council involves a s.257 HMO of 7 self contained freehold flats, however this case may be just as relevant in any dispute between more than one freeholder where a hazard exists in one property yet is caused by another. 

The three disputed issues in case ref: HA 7 2014 were:

How many repair options should be included in a notice where it is served on more than one freehold owner?

HULLCITY COUNCIL ARGUED:  They can include as many repair options as their Enforcement Officer wishes 

DAVID WOOD ARGUED: To avoid neighbourly disputes there should only be one, and it should be the most cost effective and practical

UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER) DECIDED:  In this case it was unlawful to have more than one repair option, and that more than one repair option should be avoided in all future cases involving multiple owners 

Who should receive the notice?

HULLCITY COUNCIL ARGUED: The notice should be served on all of the owners of all the properties within the HMO as a composite of the person in control of the HMO

DAVID WOOD ARGUED: It should be served only on the owner/s of the property where the work is required

UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER) DECIDED: It was unlawful to serve a notice on anyone other than the owner/s of the property where the work is required 

Who should pay for the works?

HULLCITY COUNCIL ARGUED: The owner of the property who benefits from the removal of the hazard should pay

DAVID WOOD ARGUED: The owner of the property who receives the notice should pay. If there is more than one owner involved then costs should be split using Sch 1 s.16 (3) of the Housing Act

UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER) DECIDED: It can only legally require the owner/s of the property who received the notice to pay, and if there is more than one owner involved then Sch 1 s.16 (3) would apply to assist with a fair apportionment of costs

The only point where David Wood didn’t fully agree with the Lands Tribunal decision was that the Lands Tribunal ruled that if it is at all possible to affect a repair completely within the property where the hazard exists then this must be the repair option to use. Whereas David Wood was of the view that it should always be the most practical and cost effective, on this point Hull City Councils Barrister agreed with David Wood. Despite the effect of this part of the Lands Tribunals’ decision it does at least give the correct and fair result for David Wood on this occasion and probably will do in 90% of all future cases

To conclude, it is a resounding success in this case for David Wood, and an almost perfect policy for the future against the twisted logic and biased policy of the Hull City Council enforcement officers