Landlords – Keep Your Properties Hazard Free or Face the Full Force of the Law

The balance of power in overheated rental markets where demand outstrips supply tends to shift in favour of landlords. As a High Court ruling showed, however, those involved in renting out defective or hazardous homes are likely to feel the hard edge of both the criminal and civil law.

A…

Oct 09, 2023

A couple with four young children complained to a local authority about the state of their rental property. A housing enforcement officer visited the house and identified serious hazards, including defective heating, faulty wiring, inadequate smoke detectors and a bed bug infestation.

The property’s long leaseholder and its managing agents were served with improvement notices under the Housing Act 2004, requiring them to complete specified remedial works. Both received substantial fines after being successfully prosecuted for failing to comply with the notices.

Further inspections of the property, however, revealed that the criminal proceedings had not had their desired effect. The required remedial works remained incomplete and no or minimal steps were said to have been taken to improve the tenants’ living conditions. Faced with that impasse, the council resorted to the civil law, seeking a mandatory injunction to compel the defendants to comply with the notices.

Granting the order sought, the Court was satisfied that the defendants, who had failed meaningfully to engage in the proceedings, were in knowing, flagrant and continuing breach of the criminal law. Their disregard of the requirements of the notices had real-world consequences for the tenants, who continued to suffer unsatisfactory and possibly unsafe housing conditions.

Given that the defendants had shown no intention to comply with the notices, the Court found that nothing short of an injunction would be effective in bringing them to heel. They were further ordered to pay the council’s legal costs. Any breach of the injunction could amount to a contempt of court, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

Tribunal Condemns ‘Inept and Misjudged’ Workplace Bullying Investigation

Employers who fail to conduct workplace disciplinary proceedings fairly risk serious financial and reputational consequences. In one case, a company’s handling of a bullying investigation was roundly condemned as a catalogue of ineptitude and misjudgment. The case concerned a business development manager who was accused of bullying a subordinate. Whilst accepting that she could sometimes be abrupt, she denied that she was a bully or that she had any intention to cause distress. She was…

Parcel Delivery Franchisees ‘Self-Employed’ – Guideline EAT Ruling

A right to substitute someone else to perform your work is perhaps the most powerful indicator that you are self-employed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in finding that franchisees engaged by a parcel delivery company enjoyed neither the protected status of an employee nor that of a worker. The case concerned two men who entered into standard-form franchise agreements whereby they were required to provide a vehicle and driver to make collections and deliveries for the…

Farmers Fined After Man Killed by Herd of Cows

Two farmers have been fined for failing to protect members of the public from their cattle following an incident in which a man was killed by a herd of cows while out running with his two dogs. The man, a father-of-three and former teacher, was crossing a public right of way over a field belonging to the farmers when he was surrounded by cows. He was knocked to the ground, and one of the cows then ran towards him, causing a fatal blow to his chest. An investigation by the Health and Safety…