Andreas Russo
11th April 2025
To:
Hannah Cann
Housing Standards & Enforcement Officer
City of Lincoln Council
City Hall, Beaumont Fee
Lincoln, LN1 1DD
Subject: Request for Evidence and Clarification Regarding Interview Under Caution
Dear Ms. Cann,
I am writing in response to your recent email dated 11 April 2025, in which you attached a letter inviting me to attend an interview under caution scheduled for 15 April 2025 (or the alternative date of 22 April 2025).
Having now reviewed the situation in full, I would like to raise the following important points and request clarification before attending the interview:
- Request for Evidence and Detailed Allegation Breakdown
In order to prepare properly for the interview and to seek legal advice, I kindly request full disclosure of all evidence gathered during the inspection on 27 February 2025, including:
- Photographs,
- Inspection notes, and
- A detailed explanation of the specific alleged breaches under Sections 72(3) and 234 of the Housing Act 2004, including which licence conditions are believed to have been breached.
We Request Full Disclosure.
This information is essential to ensure I understand the allegations and can rectify, respond appropriately and fairly. Most importantly this information needs to be disclosed for me to be able to correct any issue if there is any.
It is government policy and the council duty to work with me in order to rectify any issue that could be of concerns, if indeed there were issues of concern that needed rectifying at the time of inspection the duty of the council is to disclose those issues immediately to allow the responsible person to rectify them. If this was not done, the intention is not to keep people safe but to attempt to intimidate an overly compliant landlord. Because this is clear (the persistent compliance of the landlord) to the council conceals the allegations in order to try and use a strategic move (“tactical move”). This is very common place when the intention is prosecutory and not in the interests of the public, which is to rectify any issue.
This is because the council is very well in the knowledge through the previous communications the continued compliant attitude I have demonstrated over the years. If any issue is pointed out, this can be rectified, but concealing it can only have the benefit to be good for persecutory intents at the expense of the interests of the public.
- Fire Brigade Clearance – 7 April 2025
On 7 April 2025, Lincolnshire Fire & Rescue visited the property and conducted a thorough inspection. During their visit, two of our maintenance personnel were present on site and accompanied them throughout the inspection, to rectify any potential issues immediately or within 24 hours. This can be proven extensively.
The Fire Brigade found no outstanding fire safety issues. We have since received confirmation from them that the property is compliant. I am therefore surprised to have received an interview letter suggesting ongoing concerns just a few days later.
- Lack of Communication Following Warrant Visit
Following the council’s warrant-based visit on 27 February 2025, I received no communication from the council outlining any findings or concerns. I was not given any opportunity to respond to or correct any alleged breaches, The council should have contacted me within a reasonable time (typically within 2–5 days) to:
- Share the results of the visit,
- List any breaches or concerns,
- Give me the chance to respond or correct the issues in the interest of the tenants.
On the contrary, no phone call, no email not communication was received until the 11th of April./
Given that I have previously (over the years) cooperated fully and promptly with all council requests, this lack of follow-up communication is concerning and appears inconsistent with fair and transparent enforcement practice.
It seems to be more inline with a punitive attitude and intentions. If the intentions of the council were to protect tenants any alleged breach or concern would have been pointed out to me so that I could have acted on it rapidly The council is expected to act in the interests of the public and not using concealing tactics aimed pursue a punitive attitude especially when willingness to comply is amply demonstrated over several years.
In this case, it seems as if the council’s objective is to try to find faults as if they are acting as prosecutors, not enforcers. The objective seems to be prosecution success and not enforcement to compliance. The actions of the council seem to be in line with the objective to achieve the successful issuance of a fine or prosecution this completely different from the previous experience we had with this council.
- Questionable Letter Date
In your email of 11 April 2025, you indicated that the letter was sent on 26 March, yet the attached letter is dated 27 March 2025. This inconsistency raises questions about the timeline of communication and whether proper procedure has been followed.
- No Fair Chance to Respond or Rectify
Aside from the email received on 11 April, I have received no communication regarding any further concerns following the February inspection under warrant.
If there were ongoing issues, I should have been given the opportunity to address them and rectify them prior to being invited to a formal interview under caution. I am committed to maintaining standards as I have done over the previous several years and believe proportionality, fairness, and duty of carerequires proper notice and engagement with me to rectify any possible issue amicably. This was NOT done.
Cooperation Going Forward
I remain fully cooperative and willing to engage constructively with the council. If there are any outstanding concerns, I invite you to clarify them so that they can be rectified. As mentioned above, the property has already been deemed compliant by Lincolnshire Fire & Rescue during their visit on 7 April.
- Interview Letter Not Received by Post or Email on 26th or 27th Marc.h
I would also like to note that I never received the original interview letter by post orby on emailthe 26th or 27th untilthe 11th of Aprilbyn email. The only version I have received was the one attached to your email dated 11 April. Giventhat the council is using concealment tactics, this lack of proper delivery has further affected my ability to respond in a timely and informed manner. Because of this,s it is not possible for me to consult with a solicitor due to this short period.
- Maintenance Evidence Previously Submitted
Following the previous inspection in 2024, I submitted detailed evidence of the maintenance work that was carried out in response to the concerns raised at the time. To date, I have received no response or feedback regarding that submission. No queries were made by the council in respect of the works were done or whether others were outstanding, etc. This is in line with a concealment tactic with the intent of “catching people out”. This is corroborated by the warrant request and the non-communication in respect to their findings during the surprise visit that was followed up by a non-disclosure of the findings on the day.
This is typical of a prosecutory and intimidation tactic where the objective is trying to find fault at all costs without the intention of attempting to rectify any of them.
- Invitation for Re-inspection
If the council still has any concerns about maintenance or compliance, I am more than happy to arrange for a follow-up inspection at a time convenient for you within a reasonable time before interview or after the interview. I will ensure that one or two maintenance personnel are present at the property to immediately rectify any issues you feel require attention. This is once again, after several years of demonstrable compliance, a further demonstration of willingness to comply going forward, as I have already done over several years.
Timing of Warrant Visit
I would also like to raise a concern regarding the timing of the council’s visit with a warrant on 27 February 2025, which took place at 7:00 AM.
To the best of my understanding, a “reasonable time” for such inspections would generally fall between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM, in line with normal working hours. While we submit that the long record of my compliance over several years does NOT warrant this type of action,n 7 am seems to be clearly out with the timing of entry allowed by the warrant and given the context of my record of continued compliance within the context of the Housing Act 2004.
- Attendance on 22 April – Childcare Considerations
I am currently intending to attend the interview on the rescheduled date of 22 April 2025, as kindly offered. However, I would like to mention that I am the sole carer of my two children, who are 4 years old. if I am unable to secure suitable childcare, I may need to bring them with me on the day. I appreciate your understanding in this matter and will do my best to minimize any disruption.
- Legal Advice & Timing Constraints
Due to the short notice and the current holiday period, it has been extremely difficult to seek appropriate legal advice in time for the interview, even Icamee to interview.
This letter has been written in urgency as a result of receiving the first notification only on 11 April 2025, which has left little time to prepare adequately.
- Final Note on Compliance
Despite the circumstances, I am confident in my ability to demonstrate full compliance with housing standards without any issues and will remained compliant as have done over the past several years.
The recent clearance by the Fire Brigade confirms the property is being managed with full compliance.
13.1 No communication from the council.
Both prior the issue of the warrant and after the execution no communication was made with me in any way. No communication in terms of request of extra evidence for compliance with the requests made by the council in late 2024. As stated the evidence was sent to the council in 2024 and no reply for clarification was made by the council. No single phone call or email was received by the council until the 11th of April 2025.
No request of revisit was made at any point. Complete silence from the council.
Failure to communicate any alleged breaches identified by the council during the visit under warrant.
We assumed since no communication was made within 5 working days from the council the council did not have any concerns. It is the duty of the council especially in case of a Licensed HMO and in case of a landlord with great record of compliance over several years that if any concerns were identified these would have been pointed out to the license holder to achieve prompt rectification. On the contrary the council decided to exercise concealment and do not disclose their concerns.
Distress caused to the tenants due to the exercise of the warrant of entry.
The early morning entry at unreasonable hours of the day 7am. Had caused distress to the tenants present at the time. We have to employ a substantial degree of efforts in communication to calm them down. Neither I nor the tenants have ever experience this type of intervention before. The tenants have clearly expressed that the time of the visit was completely inappropriate.
The current attitude of the council to issue warrant executes them at inappropriate times of the day and interviews under cautions inappropriate.
We discussed this with the tenants and the contractors who are familiar with the property and anyone else that in context the present approach of the council is wildly disproportionate. This is especially in the context of other licensed HMO’s in far poorer conditions and the hidden unlicensed HMOs in even worse conditions.
This is one of the failures of the council, which is being disproportionate and heavy handed with a landlord that demonstrated compliance of over several years, while completely ongoing other that do not even license their HMO property. We understand that it is much easier to try and find faults with a landlord that operates in broad daylight than instead intervene and rectify those situation that are blatantly illegal, however this approach is very detrimental and places resources in the wrong place. Yet unfortunately another proof of the inefficiency of the authorities and misplacement of resources.
Especially the tenants are aware of this because they have firsthand knowledge of the state of comparable portieres, both licensed and illegally run as HMOs.
We have not asked for out tenants testimony on this point but a case with their testimony and others can be built if this attitude persists.
Principle of proportionality and fairness, opportunity to rectify.
It is a very well known that the central government intend enforcement to be carried out in a constructive collaborative way on licensed HMOs.
It is very well known that despite all possible efforts and expenses if someone inspects any premises and he/she is looking for faults or breaches these can be found (or even made up especially when the term is very general like “maintenance of communal areas”. The reason for this to be a common manufactured (made up breach) is because the term is VAGUE. Therefore despite all efforts this is always a claim that can be made up at any time.
For this reasons the central government places provisions to avoid abuses from the local authorities in case especially of Licensed HMOs. It is clear that for any heavy handed approach to be contemplated first he council needs to demonstrate that they tried to rectify the issue by talking and communicating actively with the license holder. Otherwise any landlord will be subject of potential abuses from the local councils for obvious reasons, since it is so easy to make up deficiencies.
Therefore before a heavy handed approach (using concealment Tactics) is used it is expected that the council demonstrated attempted active engagement with the landlord and the landlord despite the warnings and repeated attempts failed to comply willfully.
The punitive approach is only justified after all other options have been exhausted. But not in a case like mine where not only compliance have been demonstrated over several years but also as recently as the 7th Of April 2025.
Heavy handed punitive approaches are clearly out of place in my case. As demonstrated I have re invited the council to re inspect, if they find any specific faults these will be rectified.
Heavy handed approaches since they are expensive and slow are only used for that license holder who clearly deliberately fails to comply with legitimate requests after ample opportunity is given and follow up from the authority is appropriately served on the license holder. Any other uses of heady handed approach on licensed landlord who demonstrate compliance are inappropriate.
The central government clearly states that must be given an opportunity to rectify issues in licensed HMOs this is because if any council officer wants to find issues they will always find points of “non compliance” as they see fit. To avoid potential abuses from the local authority the directive is clear that the council have to point out specifically each issue and provide ample opportunity to rectify, follow up and only use a heavy handed approach in case the non compliance intentional and well proven then heavy handed approach maybe justifiable because these are tools made to force non compliant HMO’s holders to compliance. These tools are not efficient, fast and effective and this is also the reason for not using them with landlords who show compliance.
If the mere presence of a deficiency justifies a heavy handed approach then this would be abused because generic (subjective) claims of lack of maintenance of yard, communal areas etc can be made at any point and could become an illegitimate source of revenue for the local authority.
Claims of mismanagement like lack of maintenance of yard, communal areas and unfair bias to presumption of guilt during the visit of the 27th of February.
While it is well proven this is not our case using considerable indisputable proof from tenants, contractors etc. some issues could have been an ongoing concern in the process of rectification line the top floor bathroom repair. For example it is my understanding that at the time of the visit of the27th of February 2025 the top floor bathroom was under repair due to a leak and other issues.
According to one of the tenants interviewed the question from the officer was along the lines, “how many months has this bathroom not been in service”. The assumption of guilt (months) is very clear here from the type of question and this is unfair.
I would like to emphasize that this attitude has been reported not only by tenants but by the people accompanying the officer during previous visits. The presumption was guilt and fault finding attitude was always pervasive and unfair. A fault finding attitude is acceptable as long as an opportunity for us is given to rectify the issue. However the presumption of Guilt and a heavy handed approach is unacceptable and easily challenged given the context.
In the case above the tenant corrected this by correcting the question itself. It was not months but days, the bathroom was under repair only over two days at most at the time of the visit and the question made by the officer was “how many months had this bathroom been this way”. This is further proof of the intention of attempt to incriminate me. Truth is that the bathroom was out of order only of a few days namely one or two and it was fully repaired two days later.
This is one of the proofs of the general intention to find incriminating evidence at all costs. Please note that we hold this witness statement and others that prove the same point. Which is to say a clear unfair attempt to fabricate evidence by asking questions in a deceitful way with the lear purpose of try and incriminate me. This intention was picked up by the tenants who were present on the day. However we will not want to go too much detail in all the evidence we hold of this clear unfair intent to find culpability. However if required, is can be proven that this was the pervasive attitude during the visit on the 27th of February at 7 am.
The previous tenants and maintenance person attest to a aggressive attitude during the visit in 2024 but not to this extreme measure.
It is understood that once you apply for a court order for entry you want to make sure that an incriminating proof is found. It would not look good not to find anything of course. However this is very unfair to a compliant landlord and I must point it out and present the evidence if required.
I note that despite the fact that no issue was raised and pointed out to me by the authorities in connection to this of anything else following the inspection on the 27th of February; the bathroom was reinstated approximately 2 days later as expected. The tenants are very familiar to the way we repair and maintain this property, they know that all maintenance is carried out very quickly and this is the case for several years.
The indisputable, overwhelming record of compliance with Lincoln council authorities over several years.
We have indisputable evidence of collaboration with all authorities of Lincoln council since prior to 2016. This evidence is continued all throughout and the latest dates 7th of April 2025 only less than a week ago.
In the light of this and more, the punitive approach of a landlord license holder seems very clearly unjustified and this heavy-handed approach is clearly disproportionate. It seems as if there is a concerted effort from the representative of the authority to try and find something to punish the license holder in some way. The punishing approach is in this context completely unjustified.
Example of the effects of using the appropriate action.
In case the appropriate action was used by the council. If deficiencies were identified on the 27th of February these would have been pointed out the day after and if appropriate these issues would have been resolved either within 24 hours or within 5 days. By the beginning of March then the council could have asked to verify those corrections were made and issue closed.
On the contrary the council decided to use the concealment tactics and make formal notice of intentions to initiate legal action with the interview under caution with the police several weeks later. Clearly a disproportionate heavy handed approach and counterproductive if the intent is to resolve real issues. Productive if the intent is to try and incriminate.
In this case this heavy handed approach not only is it inappropriate but clearly counterproductive, if the aim of the council is bring HMOs to compliance.
Whereas it is a good strategy is used to intimidate landlords willing to comply as I have demonstrated over the years. It is also counter productive as well as it places me in a defensive position (as I should be consult a solicitor instead of focusing my energy in rectifying issues. Issues which I am not aware of and no one else is aware of including the tenants and maintenance people).
However, I still invite the full disclosure and a visit if the council is genuinely interested in rectification of potential issues. I think focusing on rectifying issues not only is the government intentions behind the drafting of legislation but is the right thing to do.
Sudden interview letter without prior communication or appropriate warning
After the 27 February visit, I received no notification of any breaches or issues. I was not given the opportunity to respond, clarify, or rectify any concerns. I acted in good faith, previously submitted maintenance evidence in 2024, and believed everything was in order, especially when no correspondence was received from the council in connection with this.
The sudden invitation to an interview under caution — with no warning, no follow-up and no communication— came as a complete surprise, especially given that the Fire Brigade has since confirmed full compliance and My demonstrable historical record of compliance with the requests made by the council.
14.s235 request
This request was satisfied in as much detail as possible. The amount of information requested suggested a FULL audit of the property also in terms of management. Some requests were in connection with the management of the HMO. Although we submit that that request was not required given the context of the situation we satisfied them all to the best of our ability and we did not make any complaint about it.
After the submission of documentation in November 2024, no communication was made from the council. We assumed that since no
The scope of the information request was overwhelming, and we also found some that were clearly out with the remit for example the request for building control approval of an existing building and other unrelated which we are not detailing here.
No proper communication or assistance, failure to advise.
If at any point the authorities had any concerns not only they would communicate over an email but also over the phone. At no point we received a phone call for clarification or assistance In this case everything is escalated towards warrants of entry requests, interviews under caution and a punitive heavy handed attitude.
The predecessor of this housing officer was Mark Sherwood, who had an approachable attitude and engaged with us with phone call advice etc. He was very helpful not only throughout the HMO application process but also prior to that. Of this, we keep email records. This is a very normal approach we found with other authorities, but in this case, the situation is completely different. No proper communication was received by the council officer in question in connection with any concerns, let alone any phone calls at all.
In exchange, we have concealment tactics and a punitive approach. This is completely out of context, disproportionate, expensive and counterproductive in case the council would like me to take certain clearly definable actions.
Ongoing Cooperation and Invitation for Re inspection
I am writing this letter in urgency, not only to respond within the limited timeframe but also to further demonstrate my ongoing cooperation and transparency, which have already been evident through past email correspondence with the council and direct collaboration with Lincolnshire Fire & Rescue, who have confirmed the property’s compliance.
If there are any further concerns regarding the management or operation of the HMO, I formally invite the council to conduct another inspection at your earliest convenience. I will ensure access is available, and request that the visit take place within normal working hours (9:00 AM – 5:00 PM), preferably in the afternoon, to accommodate my availability and ensure maintenance staff can be present.
Strong evidence against the alleged breaches
In this very short time frame (two days) we have been able to gather already strong evidence that disprove the alleged breaches. We attach only a few disproving the alleged lack of maintenance of fire escapes, communal areas and yard. Of course if this attitude continues we will be able to present far more overwhelming evidence that the alleged breaches are indeed false. Instead of taking this unreasonable stance of court warrants, interviews under caution that is causing distress to me and tenants, we suggest being proportionate and if the council have any genuine concerns you are invited back to visit the property at appropriate time and serving the appropriate notices
If the council have any concern in terms of maintenance or anything else this can be resolved very fast (even within 24 hours) if the council restores the normal a open collaborative approach instead of an inappropriate punitive stance (without communication and using strategic concealment tactics) one what is clearly detrimental as it does not lead to any constructive outcome since I have demonstrated over the years my repeated compliance. Also recently confirmed by the Fire and rescue authority on the 7th of April.
I look forward to receiving the requested information as soon as possible, so I can prepare for the interview appropriately. And most importantly I am placed in the position to rectify any outstanding issue in line with the duty of care that is expected by both the council and myself.
For example if the claim that the yard and communal areas are not maintained, how exactly is it so? For example, do you want us to remove soil, plant flowers, relay concrete, place pictures on the wall, repaint etc, the council needs to be specific and not vague in their requests. If Something is blocking the fire exist, what exactly is it, what fire exit? As mentioned the Fire and rescue authority has already been satisfied of the safety of the promises, but even then if there are concerns about safety please point them out and they will be rectified, concealment tactics are counterproductive and backfire because this is not the way the council should act, especially if the council is interested in having a safe environment for tenants in the context of a landlord renting rooms. This concealment tactic would be more appropriate for gathering evidence for a drug dealing ring but not for a landlord who had demonstrated compliance over the years and only rents rooms in a licensed HMO.
This whole situation and recent council attitude still seems Wildly Disproportionate to me given the context of the situation and my previous compliance over the years.
Focusing Resources on a perceived easy target.
I would encourage the council to focus their resources on those unlicensed Hmos pervasive in Lincoln City instead of launching investigations and issue court warrants on a licensed HMO where the landlords License holder has always proven cooperation and opennes over the yeas and as recently as the 7th of April 2025.
This seems to us
1 A mismanagement of resources
2 Unfair dealing with the cooperative landlord because he appears as an easy target.
3 Given the context, an abuse.
Given the above, we understand it is easy to scrutinize and attempt to punish a cooperative landlord of a Licensed HMO rather than focus enforcement on unlicensed HMOs, which in turn is much harder; never these less the correct, balanced and proportionate way to focus the resources
If you have any question you can call me and ask me. If you want to revisit issue ask me and this will be rearranged.
I strongly encourage the council to adopt the previous balanced approach demonstrated in the past and collaborate with me in order to help me rectify any issue and abandon concealment tactics and intimidation attitude. You can call me, email me and work with me to resolve any concerns instead adopting concealment tactics which are not warranted.
Given the short notice this letter has been written without legal advice despite the fact that the council is using concealment tactics with warrants, intentional nondisclosure of information which potentially prevents me or certainly does not help me rectify any issue.
In the light of all the above in case the council caries on with this heavy handed approach we will have no option other than start legal action in including publishing of all evidence we hold of the case.
Despite the fact that anything I write could be used against me in court I still do it in the hope to restore proportionality, balance and constructive attitude of the council towards landlord willing to comply (as demonstrated over the years and only a few days ago).
Yours sincerely,
Andreas Russo