Upper Tribunal upholds civil penalty against landlord for failure to comply with improvement notice
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has dismissed an appeal by a landlord against a £3,000 civil penalty imposed by Swale Borough Council for failing to comply with an improvement notice, finding that the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was entitled to conclude that no reasonable excuse had been established.
- Details
In Banfield v Swale Borough Council [2025] UKUT 235 (LC), Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke rejected arguments that the FTT had failed to properly consider the landlord’s explanations for non-compliance, including tenant obstruction, lease restrictions, and alleged misunderstandings about the effect of a possession notice.
The case concerned a first-floor flat in Sheerness, Kent, let by Mr Peter Banfield under an assured shorthold tenancy. Following an inspection in March 2023, Swale Borough Council served an improvement notice identifying one Category 1 hazard (excess cold) and six Category 2 hazards, including damp, electrical and fire safety issues.
Despite an initial attempt to appeal the notice, the landlord failed to complete the process. A follow-up inspection in June 2023 revealed that most of the required works had not been carried out. The council subsequently imposed a financial penalty of £4,800, later reduced to £3,000 by the FTT in recognition of partial compliance and mitigating factors.
The FTT accepted that Mr Banfield had completed some works, including electrical repairs and installation of a smoke alarm, but found that key issues - such as heating, ventilation, and fire risk assessment - remained unaddressed. It rejected the landlord’s claim of a reasonable excuse, noting that while tenant non-cooperation was a factor, it did not explain the full extent of the non-compliance.
The FTT also found that the landlord had misunderstood his obligations, believing that serving a Section 21 notice absolved him of the duty to carry out repairs. It concluded that although there were mitigating circumstances, they did not amount to a statutory defence.
On appeal, Mr Banfield argued that the FTT had failed to properly consider his explanations, including tenants refusing access to contractors, lease restrictions preventing installation of extractor fans and heating and shower systems allegedly being functional but misused by tenants.
Judge Cooke acknowledged that the FTT’s reasoning on the “reasonable excuse” defence was brief, but held that its conclusions were “inevitable” based on the evidence. She noted that the council’s housing officer, a Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner, had provided credible evidence that the heating and shower systems were defective.
“The FTT’s decision could have been better explained,” Judge Cooke said, “but the parties did have the information they needed to understand the FTT’s reasoning and it would be wrong to set the decision aside.”
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Events
22-10-2025 4:00 pm
05-11-2025 4:00 pm
Directory
