Council obtains High Court injunction to secure compliance with improvement notices

The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham has been granted a High Court injunction in order to secure compliance with improvement notices served under the Housing Act 2004.

In London Borough of Barking And Dagenham v Gbadegesin & Anor [2023] EWHC 2371 (KB), Mrs Justice Hill concluded that the leasehold owner of the property and the second defendant had shown “no intention” to comply with the notices and that “their disregard of it will continue unless restrained by an injunction”.

The Part 8 claim was brought by the council in its capacity as a local housing authority.

The First Defendant was the leasehold owner of the property and the second defendant acted for and on behalf of the First Defendant in relation to the rental of the property.

Mrs Justice Hill said that in May 2022, a housing enforcement officer who works for the council received a complaint about disrepair at the premises from one of the tenants.

The tenant sent the officer evidence of a bedbug infestation at the property. Photographs showed bite marks from the bedbugs on his children. A video showed the bedbugs in the curtains, said the judge.

On 13 June 2022, the officer carried out an inspection of the property, in which he identified “a series of problems”.

These included: the front door had a defective lock with a loose barrel and was being held up by screws; there was only one source of heating in the property in the main bedroom; there was damp and mould growth in the bathroom; the only smoke detector in the building was in the hall and was not working.

On 16 August 2022, both defendants were served with improvement notices under the Housing Act, sections 11 to 12. The remedial works were required to be completed by 16 September 2022.

The High Court judge noted that “neither Defendant sought to appeal the Improvement Notice.”

On 4 October 2022, the housing enforcement officer visited the property and found that the improvement notices had not been complied with, and there remained “multiple category 1 hazards in the property”.

On 18 October 2022 the officer sent Notices of Intention to Prosecute to both defendants and they were prosecuted.

The High Court judge added: “I was told that the Defendants did not engage at all with the criminal proceedings.”

On 19 June 2023, the officer visited the property and found that the works had still not been completed.

At paragraph 7 of his first witness statement, he said that there had been "no or minimal activity to improve the conditions that these households are experiencing", said the judge.

Turning to the claimant's application dated 18 August 2023, Mrs Justice Hill said that the defendants had been “properly served” with the proceedings.

She added: “They were plainly on notice of the claim, the Claimant's application dated 18 August 2023 and of the 22 September 2023 hearing, as their very limited engagement with the claim indicated.

“However, consistent with their position in the criminal proceedings, it appears that they have simply chosen not to attend or be represented at the trial of the claim.”

She noted that the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, “quite understandably”, considers it to be “expedient for the promotion or protection of the inhabitants of its area to seek mandatory injunctive relief to secure compliance with the Improvement Notice”.

She added that both defendants were convicted in the Magistrates' Court on 21 February 2023 for their failure to comply with the improvement notices, however, the remedial works required by the Improvement Notice “remain outstanding”.

On this, she said: “The Defendants are in knowing and continuing breach of the criminal law. I accept Ms Pratt [on behalf of the council]’s submissions that the Defendants' continuing breach is a flagrant breach of the criminal law; and that in all the circumstances - including the Defendants' lack of meaningful engagement with these proceedings - the clear inference is that their continuing breach is deliberate.”

The judge noted that the disregard of the requirements of the improvement notice was causing the tenants to suffer “unsatisfactory, and possibly unsafe, housing conditions, especially given the ongoing presence of category 1 hazards”.

Referring to Bingham LJ's “third principle”, which requires consideration of whether the unlawful conduct will continue “unless and until retrained by an injunction; and whether nothing short of an injunction will be effective”, Mrs Justice Hill found that both aspects of this test were met.

It was revealed by the judge that neither defendant appealed the improvement notice, whether within the required time or at all. Neither defendant participated in, or defended, the prosecution, and neither sought to appeal their convictions or sentences.

She said: “It is clear that the criminal penalty has been ineffective to compel compliance with the Improvement Notice. On that basis, the facts of this case are even more compelling than those in Bovis: this is not simply a case where it is speculated that the threat of prosecution will be ineffective, but one where the Defendants have been convicted and yet are in continuing and knowing breach of the criminal law.”

She added: “In addition to their lack of participation in the criminal proceedings, neither Defendant has engaged meaningfully with these proceedings. Indeed the First Defendant specifically told [an employed barrister with the claimant] on 18 August 2023 that he 'would not be' responding to either the Claimant or the Court.”

Mrs Justice Hill found that that it was “both just and convenient” to grant the injunctive relief sought.

She also ordered the defendants to pay the council’s costs of the claim. She said: “the figure of £4,005.56 sought by the Claimant was, in my judgment, proportionately and reasonably incurred and proportionate and reasonable.”

Lottie Winson