Landlords ordered to pay £3k in costs after unreasonable behaviour in appeal

The London Borough of Islington has secured a £3,000-plus costs order in its favour after a judge found that landlords had “behaved unreasonably in bringing an appeal which they never intended to pursue properly and never did pursue properly”.

The case related to a single storey garage in Jackson Road, Islington that the council considered was unfit for habitation. It had no basic facilities such as gas, electricity and water supply.

In October 2016 Islington served a prohibition notice under the Housing Act (2004) to prevent the landlords renting it out.

In response the landlords appealed the notice and took the council to a tribunal.

Islington said it had tried to reach a settlement with the landlords by delaying the operation of the prohibition notice for three months and reducing the fee to £200. “This would have significantly reduced costs and saved a great deal of council time and resources,” it suggested.

However, the landlords failed to pay the hearing fee and the tribunal withdrew their appeal.

The council said it decided to apply for its costs as the landlords had failed to comply with tribunal directions.

Judge NK Nicol concluded that there was no reasonable explanation why the council’s offer of a three-month respite for the prohibition notice should not have be accepted.

He is reported to have stated that the landlords had “behaved unreasonably in bringing an appeal which they never intended to pursue properly and never did pursue properly. They deliberately failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions and rebuffed the Respondent’s [Islington Council’s] reasonable efforts to dispose of the proceedings”.

Islington was awarded costs of £3,111.50.

Jan Hart, Islington Council’s service director for public protection, said: “This garage had no basic facilities and should not have been let out as a place to live. We respect the landlord’s right to appeal our prohibition notice, but as the judge found, the tribunal process was not pursued properly and this wasted time and public money.”