Manaquel case: Important changes for landlords appealing improvement notices

A recent judgment from the Upper Tribunal (UT) in Manaquel Company Ltd v London Borough of Lambeth [2025] UKUT 97 (LC) has important implications for landlords who are appealing an improvement notice under the Housing Act 2004. 

Previous understanding vs. new interpretation 

Until now, the understanding was that that when appealing an improvement notice, the condition of the property at the appeal hearing date would be the deciding factor.  

As a result, landlords could: 

• File the appeal 
• Complete remedial works to address the hazards while the appeal was pending 
• Have the property assessed in its improved condition at the hearing 
• Likely have the notice quashed due to these improvements 

However, the Upper Tribunal in Manaquel found that this was not the correct legal test, citing previous case law for support. 

Key precedent: The Hussain case 

The tribunal referenced Waltham Forest London Borough Council v Hussain & Ors as relevant precedent. While the Hussain case concerned property licensing and the "fit and proper person" requirement, it used identical language to the provisions in the Housing Act 2004 that govern appeals against improvement notices. 

The Hussain judgment explained how appeals should be properly considered. In this case, the court had to determine which question they needed to answer: 

• "Is the appellant a fit and proper person to hold a license today (on the appeal date)?" 
• "Was the previous decision about their fitness to hold a license correct at the time it was made?" 

Given that the intention of parliament when they wrote this legislation was for the decision to be taken by the local authority, the tribunal should afford some weight to that, and the correct thing is to consider whether the authority was wrong in its decision when it made it. 

From this we can say that appeals exist on a spectrum: 

• At one end: the matter is heard completely fresh, examining all available evidence and arguments 
• At the other end: the original decision is reviewed to determine if it was correct, with the decision-making process itself under scrutiny 

The court determined that the second interpretation was correct. Otherwise, the issue would become an "ever-moving target." 

Application to Manaquel and implications for landlords 

Applying this precedent to Manaquel, the proper approach for the tribunal was to examine whether the local authority's original decision and handling of the improvement notice was correct—not to completely rehear the matter and potentially quash the notice based on the condition of the property on the date of appeal. 

How does this affect landlords? 

For most landlords, this change is unlikely to make a difference, as they provide good quality homes that should never receive an improvement notice. Landlords should continue to conduct regular property inspections and ensure their properties remain free from hazards to ensure this continues. 

For those that do receive an improvement notice though, the decision does make a successful appeal less likely. Successful appeals will now be limited to occasions where the local authority made an error at the point the notice was served.  

This may also lead to more landlords asking to vary the improvement notice. This approach can: 

• Provide additional time to complete required works 
• Allow for requests to use different methods of addressing the hazard, which is particularly relevant when new products or methods have become available since the notice was served.

More information

You can find out more about local authority enforcement powers on our Resources pages.