Redmond vs Cherwell District Council

This case involved an appeal by Craig Redmond against a penalty notice issued by Cherwell District Council for failing to comply with the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015.

TLDR:

• Craig Redmond appealed against a £5,000 penalty notice issued by Cherwell District Council.
• The penalty was for failing to install smoke and carbon monoxide alarms in a rental property.
• The Tribunal reduced the penalty to £2,500, considering tenant misconduct and other mitigating factors.

Craig Redmond, a professional landlord, was issued a penalty notice by Cherwell District Council for failing to install smoke and carbon monoxide alarms at one of his rental properties. The Council's inspection revealed the absence of these alarms, leading to the issuance of a Remedial Notice, which Redmond did not comply with.

The case was heard by the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) on 21 March 2024, with the decision given on 30 May 2024. The Tribunal had to determine whether the penalty notice was justified and if the amount of the penalty was reasonable.

The Tribunal noted that the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 require landlords to install smoke alarms on each story of the premises and carbon monoxide alarms in rooms with fixed combustion appliances. The Council had found that Redmond's property lacked these alarms during inspections in May and June 2023.

Redmond argued that he was a responsible landlord and that the alarms had been removed by tenants who neglected and damaged the property. He contended that it was unfair to impose the penalty on him when the non-compliance was due to tenant misconduct.

The Tribunal acknowledged the statutory duty of landlords to comply with the regulations, regardless of tenant behavior. However, it found that the Council's decision to impose the maximum penalty of £5,000 did not fairly consider the mitigating factors presented by Redmond.

The Tribunal accepted that Redmond had installed the alarms and that their absence was due to tenant actions. It also considered the period of non-compliance to be relatively brief and noted that Redmond planned to address the issue promptly.

Based on these considerations, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty should be reduced to £2,500. This decision balanced the need to enforce the regulations with the recognition of the mitigating circumstances.

Legal representatives: Ms J Burden for the appellant, Ms K Staunton for the respondent.

Judicial Panel: Judge Anthony Snelson

Case Citation Reference: [2024] UKFTT 444 (GRC)