Trinity Housing Barrister Summary of London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v Gbadegesin & Anor [2023]

Trinity Social Housing Law barrister, Henry Percy-Raine has prepared the following summary of the recent decision of London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v Gbadegesin & Anor [2023] EWHC 2371 (KB).

This was a part 8 claim brought by a local housing authority under s.222 Local Government Act 1972 seeking a final mandatory injunction against a leasehold owner and a managing agent of a residential property to secure compliance with an improvement notice served under ss.11-12 Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004).

The facts

In May 2022, the local authority received a complaint about disrepair. The first defendant was identified from Land Registry records as being the owner of the property and was also registered there for Council Tax purposes.

In June 2022, an inspection was carried out of the property. Several issues of disrepair were identified including defective heating, dilapidated fittings, broken doors, damp and mould growth, and electrical hazards.

Both Defendants were served with improvement notices under ss.11-12 HA 2004 requiring the remedial works to be completed by mid-September 2022. Neither Defendant sought to appeal the improvement notice. Accordingly, under s.15(g) HA 2004, the notice was treated as being final and conclusive as to the matters. A visit in October 2022 confirmed that the improvement notices had still not been complied with.

Both Defendants were prosecuted but did not engage in the criminal proceedings. In February 2023, they were convicted in their absence for failure to comply with the notice under s.30(1) HA 2004 and several related offences. Neither Defendant sought to appeal their conviction or sentence. It was not known whether the financial penalties were paid. Notwithstanding the convictions, the remedial works required by the improvement notice remained outstanding by June 2023.

The civil proceedings

The local authority issued these part 8 proceedings in July 2023. Neither Defendant attended the final hearing nor filed any evidence in the claim. The Court decided under CPR39.3(1) to proceed in their absence being satisfied they had been properly served but consistent with the criminal trial, had simply chosen not to attend [44].

The Court was satisfied that the first Defendant, notwithstanding his previous denial, was the leasehold owner of the property with official copies of the title register confirming his interest. The Court was further satisfied that the second Defendant, notwithstanding its previous denials, was the managing agent for the property. This was inferred from the tenancy agreement but also from the failure to appeal the improvement notice/ defend the criminal proceedings on the basis that it was not responsible.

The jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief under section 222 was considered in City of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Ltd [1992] All ER 697. On the facts, the Court was satisfied the test to grant relief was met in the instant case. Notably, the local authority had sought recourse via criminal proceedings before invoking the assistance of the civil courts but despite the convictions, remedial works remained outstanding. The Court was satisfied that the Defendants were knowingly acting in breach which coupled with their lack of engagement in proceedings, it was considered that unless restrained, the Defendants’ disregard of the improvement notice would continue and nothing short would ensure compliance.

Accordingly, it was held to be both just and convenient to grant the mandatory injunction sought.