Bryan G Curd v Liverpool City Council
Decision date: 30 July 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 218 (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 an improvement notice under the Housing Act 2004 requiring remedial work to seven fire doors in an HMO. The First-tier Tribunal varied the notice to require an independent fire risk assessor's report because it was not satisfied a hazard existed; the Upper Tribunal held that variation was unlawful and set the FTT decision aside. The improvement notice remains unconfirmed and inoperative; the Council may re-inspect, revoke, or consider serving a new notice.
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
An improvement notice cannot lawfully require the recipient to undertake investigations or tests to determine whether a hazard exists; the local authority must be satisfied a hazard exists before serving such a notice, and a tribunal on appeal has no broader power to vary an improvement notice in that way unless it itself is satisfied a hazard exists.
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 judgment suggested that the seriousness of a category 2 HHSRS hazard (as measured by score) is relevant to the authority's discretion to serve an improvement notice and that disclosure of the assessment may be relevant on appeal. It also indicated that requiring replacement of non-defective components solely because they lack documentary marking (e.g. CE marks) may be inappropriate.