Liverpool CC v John O’Boy, MIDAS Property Management Ltd and Peter Anthony Doherty, 17 December 2013
The first defendant (Mr O’ Boy) was the private owner and landlord of a property comprising 5 flats. He had instructed the second defendant (MIDAS) to act as property agent on his behalf. Following complaints from the tenants, the property was inspected by the local authority, who found the conditions to be “appalling and dangerous”. As a result, the council brought prosecutions against both the owner and the management agent for multiple breaches of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation Regulations (2006). Issues with the condition of the property included:
- Significant and extensive damp;
- Severed electrical wiring to the electric meter (which may or may not have been live);
- Mould and damp conditions of such an extreme in the bathroom that the shower cubicle had dropped and was unsafe to use;
- The absence of any safety record for the boiler (which only worked intermittently), as well as faults to the boiler including the flue camp at the elbow joint being found to be loose and taped up with what appeared to be masking tape, risking carbon monoxide leaking back into the property, and a poorly maintained flue;
- A wall in the backyard had collapsed leaving a pile of loose bricks, & a question mark over the safety of the remaining wall;
- The basement (which was accessible to tenants) was full of rubbish including old mattresses and bedding, and the stairway giving access was unsafe, with missing steps and no handrail;
- The fire alarm had been disabled by the removal of the fuse, leaving no coverage for the entire property;
- No contact details were displayed for the property manager.
The owner of the property denied responsibility, blaming the manager, relying on his status as a foreign national who had delegated all responsibility in the running and management of the company to MIDAS. MIDAS placed the blame at the owner’s door, claiming that their role had been limited to collecting rent. He claimed that he had repeatedly reported the deterioration of the property to Mr O’Boy, who had refused to instruct (or fund) repairs.
As the title of the 2006 Regulations suggests, the requirements place burdens upon “the manager” of the HMO. S263(3) of the Housing Act 2004 cites the “person managing” the property for the purposes of 2006 Regulations as “in relation to premises, the person who, being an owner or lessee of the premises—
(a)receives (whether directly or through an agent or trustee) rents or other payments from—
(i)in the case of a house in multiple occupation, persons who are in occupation as tenants or licensees of parts of the premises; and
(ii)in the case of a house to which Part 3 applies (see section 79(2)), persons who are in occupation as tenants or licensees of parts of the premises, or of the whole of the premises; or
(b)would so receive those rents or other payments but for having entered into an arrangement (whether in pursuance of a court order or otherwise) with another person who is not an owner or lessee of the premises by virtue of which that other person receives the rents or other payments;
and includes, where those rents or other payments are received through another person as agent or trustee, that other person. “ (my emphasis).
In line with this, the District Judge held that both the Owner and Management company were responsible, fining them £8,700 (plus £3205 costs) and £3300 (plus £3025 costs) respectively. This heralds a warning both to Landlords to ensure that they are instructing effective and reputable agents to deal on their behalf (to adequately inspect and report any repair requirements), and to Management agents to ensure that in the event that they find themselves in a difficult position in convincing the property owner to undertake necessary repairs that they sever the agency forthwith, lest liability for the owner’s failure be laid equally at their door.