Adil Catering Limited v The City of Westminster Council

The duty to ensure specified fire-safety measures and repairs in an HMO requires the manager to achieve the required state of affairs. Under regulations 4(1), 4(2) and 7(2) of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006, a relevant defect establishes a breach. The duties are not satisfied merely because the manager has inspection procedures or intends promptly to remedy defects.

This absolute outcome duty is distinct from regulation 4(4), which requires reasonable measures. The statutory defence of reasonable excuse prevents unfairness in strict-liability cases, but the excuse must relate to the offence. Ignorance caused by inadequate inspection, ineffective remedial work, or pandemic-related management difficulties will not necessarily be reasonable.

The appellant managed an HMO at 161 Praed Street, London. Following a tenant complaint and a later inspection, Westminster City Council identified obstructed escape routes, fire-safety defects and defective common-part lighting.

The Council imposed a civil penalty under the Housing Act 2004. On a rehearing, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) upheld the breaches, rejected the reasonable-excuse defence and reduced the penalty from £16,000 to £15,750.

The appellant appealed on whether the evidence established breaches of the Management Regulations, whether it had a reasonable excuse, and whether the penalty had been assessed lawfully.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to find the relevant breaches proved beyond reasonable doubt and to uphold a penalty of £15,750.

2. The word ensure in regulations 4(1), 4(2) and 7(2) of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 requires an outcome. It requires the manager to make sure that escape routes are unobstructed and in repair, fire equipment and alarms work, and adequate lighting is available at all times. A defect at the time of inspection therefore establishes breach, subject to the statutory defence.

3. That construction was supported by the contrast with regulation 4(4). Regulation 4(4) expressly requires the manager to take measures that are reasonably required, whereas the other provisions require a specified state of affairs. Regular inspections and procedures for prompt repairs do not themselves prevent breach of an outcome duty.

4. The reasonable-excuse defence in section 234(4) of the Housing Act 2004 must relate to the particular offence. It is construed broadly because the offence is one of strict liability. However, the appellant's lack of notice was not a reasonable excuse where it had failed to inspect sufficiently. Nor did contractors' ineffective attendance, or pandemic-related difficulties, excuse repeated fire-alarm and fire-extinguisher defects.

5. The Council's penalty policy was guidance rather than a binding formula. The First-tier Tribunal gave adequate reasons for allowing a greater reduction for defective lighting than for the more serious fire-safety breaches. An appellate tribunal should not fine-tune a penalty lawfully assessed within the tribunal's discretion.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the appeal and upheld the First-tier Tribunal's decision to impose a total financial penalty of £15,750.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): by decision of 1 October 2021, confirmed the civil penalty for breaches of the Management Regulations, reducing it from £16,000 to £15,750.