Cautionary Tales

The basic requirement for annual gas appliance safety checks at properties is now well known and achieving compliance with the rules should not be too troublesome. However, many are not aware of some of the other requirements of the same regulations that could leave  you open to a nasty shock. As one south coast landlord found out, the law requires much more than simply getting the annual appliance check done.

Mr Paul Clark from Southsea in Portsmouth was a landlord who let and managed his own properties. He had attended a “Buy to Let” seminar run by a local agent, but had then decided to do everything himself, a decision he may now rue. It has certainly not saved him any money!

In a tragic tale, Mr Clark failed to have adequate maintenance carried out on his boiler at 7 Oxford Road, Southsea, a property he rented out to the Overton Family. The annual safety check was due to be done by the 28 March 2003, but had been delayed until early April. Tragically the tenant’s daughter, 11 year old Katie Overton, died of carbon monoxide poisoning on the night of the 29 March 2003, just one day after it should have been checked. Even at this point the fault was not picked up and it was not until others in the family were again seriously affected some days later that the cause was identified. Fortunately the second instance did not result in any fatalities, but this was probably as much down to luck as good judgement.

The flue was not fitted correctly and this had not been picked up on previous annual safety checks. The boiler had not been serviced since 1996, some 7 years earlier. The combination of a poor flue and failing to have the safety checks done resulted in the unnecessary death of a young child.

The regulations do not specifically say that appliances have to be serviced, a point the family have now started campaigning to have changed. However, the regulations do require “adequate maintenance”. HSE Principal Inspector Mike Harrison, stated after the successful prosecution that “adequate maintenance” would include having the boiler serviced to the manufacturers specification. Of course, adequate maintenance could also require work done more often than the annual safety check or the manufacturers recommended service intervals, these should just be regarded as the absolute minimum. Since much of the servicing work will overlap with the safety check, it makes cost effective sense to have both completed at the same visit.

This tragedy cost a family their daughter and cost the landlord £60,000. He pleaded guilty at Andover Magistrates Court in April and was referred to Winchester Crown Court for sentencing (as Magistrates have more limited penalties and this was considered to warrant higher penalties than they could issue. Mr Clark was fined £20,000 for failing to have the boiler serviced and £22,000 for failing to have the annual safety check, plus £18,000 costs.

Beware evictions

Most people are becoming aware of the new rules about Houses in Multiple Occupation and licensing. However, there is one element that landlords should be careful about that has already cost one landlord the right to manage his own property.

It stems from section 102 of the Housing Act where it says that the local authority are under duty to take over management of the property if the “health and safety condition is satisfied”.

Section 104 says the “health and safety” condition may include:

“a threat to evict persons occupying a house to avoid the house being required to be licensed”.

Gateshead council have already invoked this clause and taken under their own management a property from which the landlord had sought to evict the tenants to avoid licensing.

The landlord, quite unlawfully, told the tenant that they had to move out within 4 days. The tenant sought re-housing from the council and so the story unfolded. Though this eviction may have been unlawful, the actual wording does not limit this to unlawful evictions.

 This newsletter is produced and distributed on a limited basis. Whilst the information researched and provided is believed to be correct, neither the sender nor anyone involved in the production of it, accepts responsibility for its accuracy.   © TFP