Houses in Multiple Occupation – A Cautionary Tale for Errant Landlords

Pressure on the housing market has led to the conversion of many redundant office buildings into flats and the number of such projects is likely to be greatly increased by shifting work patterns brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. A Court of Appeal ruling, however, powerfully signalled that…

Jan 28, 2021

The case concerned an office block that had been converted into 47 flats. After a housing officer visited, the local authority employed its powers under the Housing Act 2004 to serve a number of improvement notices on the company that owned the block’s freehold. The notices, amongst other things, required the company to remedy fire safety and electrical hazards and to install double glazing and central heating in some of the flats which were said to be excessively cold.

After some of the notices were not complied with, the council imposed civil penalties on the company totalling £140,000. The company’s director and majority shareholder received identical penalties on the basis that he had consented to or connived in the company’s failures. In addition, each of them received penalties of £96,600 in respect of breaches of the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007.

After the council served a prohibition order barring the building’s use as residential premises, the company’s rental income dried up and it entered administration. The company’s and the director’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal was subsequently rejected, save in respect of the amount of the penalties. The company’s overall penalties were reduced to £75,000 and the director’s to £99,000.

Dismissing the director’s appeal against that outcome, the Court rejected his plea that he had suffered double punishment, both as an individual and as a shareholder in the company. His penalties reflected his responsibility for the conduct of the company’s affairs, his personal knowledge of the condition of the building and his responsibility for the occurrence of similar problems at another property. The penalties, whether viewed individually or in aggregate, could not be impugned as excessive or unjust.

Coarse Language in the Workplace – ET Upholds Harassment Claim

Even if the kind of coarse language used in traditionally male-dominated workplaces was once acceptable, it certainly is not today. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in awarding substantial damages to an office administrator who was harassed by her foul-mouthed line manager. The woman worked at a lambskin processing plant, next to an abattoir. She resigned after less than a year in the job, citing what she viewed as her manager’s unacceptable, unpleasant and harassing behaviour. She…

Disability Discrimination – Diabetic Cake Shop Worker Compensated

Discrimination against disabled employees is a social evil with which Employment Tribunals (ETs) will have no truck. In one case, a cake shop worker who was dismissed because of her diabetes was awarded thousands of pounds in compensation. The woman’s condition meant that, without daily insulin injections, she would suffer a hypoglycaemic episode and fall into a coma. At the date of her dismissal, she was in stage B renal failure. In sacking her by text, her manager expressed the view that she…

Injured Fairground Worker Succeeds in Personal Injury Claim

There are often few, if any, witnesses to accidents at work and accounts of how they occurred may differ dramatically. As a case concerning an injured fairground worker showed, however, judges are adept at weighing up the evidence before reaching conclusions as to the most likely sequence of events. The worker suffered multiple injuries to his right foot when he fell 15-20 feet whilst working on a ride. His account was that he and a manager were standing on a wet handrail, attempting to free a…