HASTINGS BOROUGH COUNCIL v BRAEAR DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Decision date: 21 April 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 145 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether an improvement notice under Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2004 could validly be served on the freeholder of a converted block of flats that was managed by an RTM company but which was an unlicensed house in multiple occupation (HMO). The Upper Tribunal held paragraph 4(2) (service on an "owner" of common parts) did not apply because s.1(5) excludes an HMO from the definition "building containing one or more flats", and that paragraph 2 required service on the person(s) having control of the HMO or the person managing it. The notice served on the freeholder (and acknowledged on the RTM company) was therefore invalid; the First-tier Tribunal's quashing of the notice was upheld.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where premises are an HMO for Part 1 purposes, paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 (service on owners of common parts) is inapplicable because s.1(5) excludes an HMO from the definition "building containing one or more flats", and for an unlicensed HMO Schedule 1 paragraph 2 requires service on the person having control of the HMO (identified by s.263(1) as the recipients of rack-rent) or the person managing it.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal suggested that in converted blocks which are not HMOs, paragraph 4 may permit service on the freeholder or long lessees as "owners" of common parts and that practical considerations (who can comply) should guide selection; where an RTM company manages a non-HMO building that must be licensed, the RTM company would ordinarily be the appropriate recipient under paragraph 1.