⚖️ Summary: Why It Is Unjust to Impose Legal Costs in This Case

It is fundamentally unjust for Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Authority to seek £1,472.17 in legal costs, as these were incurred solely as a result of their own procedural failings, not through any non-compliance or obstruction by the Responsible Person.

🔹 1. Failure to Follow Pre-Action Protocol (Civil Procedure Rules)

Before taking enforcement action and triggering litigation, the Authority had a legal obligation to follow the Pre-Action Protocol, which includes:

Issuing a Letter of Claim outlining the legal basis and factual grounds;
Providing a breakdown of proposed costs;
Giving the respondent a reasonable opportunity to reply, settle, or comply;
Engaging constructively to avoid formal proceedings.

None of these steps was followed. No communication, warning, or information request was issued before enforcement. This breaches the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and weakens any cost recovery claim under CPR Part 44 (costs discretion of the court).

🔹 2. Violation of the Regulators’ Code and Public Law Principles

The Regulators’ Code (2014) and public law standards require that enforcement authorities:

Act proportionately and transparently;
Engage and educate duty holders before escalating.
Use formal action only where informal steps fail or risk is imminent.

In this case:

No efforts were made to request documentation regarding alleged deficiencies.
The Authority failed to verify facts, relying instead on assumptions or statements from unqualified individuals.
They chose enforcement as a first step, not a last resort.

This conduct contravenes public sector enforcement expectations and undermines legal fairness.

🔹 3. Costs Claim Arising from Their Own Premature Action

The costs were incurred not because the Responsible Person resisted compliance, but because:

The Authority escalated the matter without cause;
The Responsible Person had already complied (and was able to prove it upon reinspection Annexure 15 );
The enforcement was later withdrawn, acknowledging the original notice was unnecessary.

To allow recovery of costs would amount to making the Responsible Person pay for the consequences of the Authority’s failure to act proportionately and reasonably.

🔹 4. Lack of Itemisation or Cost Justification

Even if costs could be claimed in principle, the Authority has not provided a detailed breakdown of:

The legal work done;
Time spent or hourly rates charged;
How the amount of £1,472.17 was calculated;
Why such costs were necessary or reasonable in a case that was later dropped.

In the absence of such a breakdown, the claim should be struck out or rejected as vague, unsubstantiated, and procedurally defective.

🔹 5. Enforcement Notice Was Withdrawn — Compliance Confirmed

Upon the Responsible Person’s invitation, a second inspection took place on 7 April 2025.
All necessary documents were provided, and the Enforcement Notice was withdrawn.
No penalties, corrections, or ongoing enforcement actions were pursued.

This sequence confirms that no substantive breach existed, and any enforcement was unnecessary and premature.

🚫 Conclusion

It would be manifestly unjust to require the Responsible Person to pay legal costs in these circumstances. The proceedings were avoidable, improperly triggered, and based on assumptions — not facts. The Responsible Person acted in good faith, complied fully, and was never given a fair opportunity to resolve the matter informally.

To award costs here would punish compliance, reward overreach, and encourage procedural shortcuts in regulatory enforcement.

We respectfully ask the Court to reject the cost application in full.

Summary of Key Facts

Inspection occurred → no request or communication followed. ( Emails Screen shot Added end of this document )
Without any follow-up or attempt to clarify deficiencies, the Fire Authority issued an Enforcement Notice on 8 November 2024.
We filed an appeal in the Magistrates’ Court.
We then withdrew the appeal due to the time burden and instead cooperated by inviting them for a re-inspection.
Legal costs, they demanded legal costs related to the court proceedings, despite never attempting resolution or communication before issuing the original notice.
On 7 April 2025, they visited again and withdrew the Enforcement Notice because documents and evidence provided at that time demonstrated compliance.

🧷 Defence Outline: Why We Should Not Be Liable for Legal Costs

🔹 1. Breach of Natural Justice – No Prior Communication

The authority failed to follow basic procedural fairness:
- No queries, clarifications, or informal resolution attempts were made before issuing the Enforcement Notice.
- This breaches the principle of “right to be heard” (audi alteram partem), a foundational legal principle in administrative law.
We had all the required documents and compliance evidence, but were denied the opportunity to provide them before formal proceedings began.

Supporting Argument: Paragraph 1 of their own notes (attached to the notice) states the FSO applies only to non-domestic parts of HMOs—suggesting that even jurisdiction was potentially misapplied if there was confusion not clarified in dialogue.

2. Premature Enforcement = Wasted Proceedings

Issuing a formal Enforcement Notice without first attempting informal compliance measures contradicts:
- Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue’s own enforcement policy (likely requiring proportionate, escalated response).
- The Better Regulation principles (UK Government standard), which require enforcement to be:
  - Transparent
  - Accountable
  - Proportionate
  - Consistent

Case law example:

In R (on the application of M) v Newham LBC [2011], the court criticised a council for issuing enforcement without first seeking clarification or inviting a response from the party. A similar standard applies here.

3. Legal Fees are Unjustified and Oppressive

Their claim to legal fees is unreasonable because:
- The burden of court proceedings was created solely by their conduct (i.e., failure to engage beforehand).
- We withdrew our appeal not due to lack of merit, but due to practicality—and we still resolved the matter fully, without their intervention.
- Costs cannot be enforced where proceedings are caused by improper administrative conduct.

Legal analogy: A party that causes litigation by failing to resolve matters informally, then seeks costs, is in abuse of process territory.

🧾 Statement for Costs Objection

“The legal costs demand is unjustified given the procedural handling of the matter. At no point prior to the issuance of the Enforcement Notice was I contacted, warned, or invited to provide documents, which were readily available and later accepted during the 7 April reinspection. The Fire and Rescue Authority’s failure to engage in any prior correspondence, combined with the full withdrawal of the Notice following evidence submission, demonstrates that formal enforcement and subsequent court proceedings were avoidable. Legal fees should not be passed on to a party who was compliant and cooperative throughout, and who bore unnecessary costs due to procedural failings

PROCEDURAL GROUNDS – ABSENCE OF PRIOR COMMUNICATION

At no time before the issuance of the Enforcement Notice did Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Authority:

Request documentation;
Invite a response or explanation.
Notify the Responsible Person of any alleged breaches.
Engage in dialogue to resolve perceived issues informally.

This failure violates:

Natural justice principles – the right to respond to allegations before sanctions are imposed;
The Authority’s own enforcement policy (2019–2024), which calls for proportionate, graduated responses;
The Better Regulation Principles (transparency, accountability, fairness).

As a result, the enforcement process was premature and procedurally defective.

1. Why are we liable for the costs (legal basis), and

2. How the specific amounts were calculated and why they are reasonable.

Here’s why this matters legally:—

1. Failure to Follow Pre-Action Protocol

Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), councils (like any claimant) are expected to follow the Pre-Action Protocol. This includes:

Sending a Letter of Claim,

Detailing the legal basis for the claim,

Itemising the amounts claimed, and

Giving a fair opportunity for the defendant to respond or settle.

—

2. Unjustified or Unitemised Charges

Even if they have the right in principle to recover costs (e.g. under Housing Act 2004, section 49), they must still prove:

That the costs were incurred in enforcing the notice,

That they were reasonable and proportionate.

When I withdraw an appeal against a fire enforcement notice (e.g. under the Housing Act 2004 or related fire safety legislation), and the council later seeks to recover its enforcement costs, the process generally moves to the civil court system, and the procedure follows standard civil litigation rules in England and Wales. Here’s how it typically plays out:—

1. Pre-Action Phase

The Council should send a Pre-Action Protocol Letter (Letter of Claim), explaining:

The amount of costs they seek.

The basis for the claim (e.g. costs of enforcement, legal fees, inspection charges).

A deadline for our response (usually 14–30 days).
Disputing the costs (partly or wholly).
Requesting clarification or a breakdown.
Offering settlement or payment terms

It is unfair to us for Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue to demand legal costs in this case because they did not follow the basic rules of fairness and proper legal procedure. Below are the clear legal and moral reasons why this demand is unjust.

🔥 1. They Triggered Legal Action Without Giving Us a Chance to Comply

Legal Principle Violated: Right to be heard (natural justice)

Before issuing an Enforcement Notice, they never contacted us by email, phone, or letter to request:
- The fire risk assessment
- Fire alarm servicing records
- Any other compliance documents
We had almost all these documents ready, but they made assumptions of non-compliance and went straight to enforcement.
A fair regulator would first seek clarification before escalating to legal action.

⛔ Conclusion:

Their enforcement was premature and avoidable. They created the legal dispute, so they cannot now blame us for responding to it.

🧷 2. Legal Proceedings Due to Their Failings

Legal Concept: Costs follow conduct — not merely process

We had to appeal the Enforcement Notice in order to protect our position.
The court action would have never been necessary if they had simply asked us for documents first.
We withdrew the case not due to fault, but due to time and resource constraints — and even after doing so, we:
- Invited them to reinspect
- Showed them the documents
- Proved compliance
- Got the Notice of withdrawal

⛔ Conclusion:

We acted constructively and in good faith. Seeking legal costs from us is punishing us for defending ourselves against their missteps.

⚖️ 3. The Enforcement Notice Was Later Withdrawn — Full Compliance

After our appeal withdrawal, they inspected again (7 April 2025) and revoked the Enforcement Notice entirely.
This shows:
- We were compliant all along.
- Their earlier enforcement notice could have been avoided just simply asked for the documents.

📚 4. Contrary to Government Enforcement Guidance and Local Policy

Relevant standards:

Regulators’ Code (2014) — UK law requires regulators to:
- Be proportionate
- Engage with duty holders
- Avoid legal action where issues can be resolved informally
Fire and Rescue National Framework for England also emphasises:
- Targeted enforcement
- Escalation only after dialogue fails

⛔ Conclusion:

They broke their obligations by going straight to enforcement. Public authorities cannot then seek costs when they did not follow the required steps.

📌 Final Summary: Why It Is Unjust

Reason	Explanation
🔍 No Prior Engagement	We were never contacted or asked to provide documents.
🚨 Premature Enforcement	The notice was based on an assumption, not evidence.
⚖️ Misuse of Legal Process	We had to appeal simply to protect ourselves.
✅ We Were Compliant	The notice was withdrawn once, which shows we are fully compliant.
💸 They Caused the Dispute	They cannot charge us for defending ourselves against their failure.

WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE (AND FAILED TO DO)

The correct legal process, under both the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Regulators’ Code, is:

Request information first
(Do not assume non-compliance based on lack of visual confirmation)
Offer an informal resolution
(Ask for clarification or remedial measures voluntarily)
Escalate only if the risk is significant, ongoing, and unremedied
(Which was never the case)
Document attempts at engagement before enforcement
(They have zero record of any contact or attempt to resolve)

This is not just a best practice issue — it is a statutory and policy obligation they failed to meet.

Appeal to challenge the application for court costs of £1,472.17 by the fire safety authorities. This request for costs is unreasonable and unjust due to significant procedural failures and a lack of proper investigation by the authorities.

Enforcement Letter

My Examination of Enforcement Letter and Appeal to the Court

Core Argument About the Enforcement Letter:

The authorities issued a formal enforcement notice without following the necessary steps to assess compliance or to resolve potential issues through proper communication. Before escalating to legal proceedings, the authorities should have requested essential maintenance records, including fire alarm and emergency lighting maintenance logs. These records are vital for evaluating compliance, and I was fully prepared to provide them if requested.

For those in connection with the maintenance of emergency lights and fire alarm, etc, no documentation has been requested to the relevant responsible person.

Ground 2 All of the matter of enforcement are clearly not deemed to be worthy of an enforcement notice. A simple letter could be issued instead. Enforcement notices should be issued only under very serious circumstances. What is referred to in the enforcement notice are mostly minor issues that are treated only with a letter asking to take corrective action. This is almost always resolved informally, and not with a formal legal document. I already showed my willingness to comply with whatever requests were made on the day, and I communicated very clearly that, no matter what the requests, I would have complied based on the threats of closure of the dwelling house (using a prohibition notice).

Almost all points int he enforcement could have rbeen esolved with a simple letter. Especially given the fact that the subject clearly showed compliance. This seems to be a misuse of the Failure to communicate informally to address any concern informally.

Procedural Failures:

If the authorities genuinely believed that maintenance was lacking, the correct process would have been to first contact me, as the Responsible Person, to request these documents. If there had been no response or if the documents were missing, only then could they reasonably assume that the maintenance had not been carried out. However, they skipped this step entirely, making assumptions based on statements from untrained individuals who lack knowledge of our maintenance practices.

No Request for Maintenance Records: At no point did the authorities formally request maintenance records for the fire alarm system or emergency lighting. These documents are fundamental to assessing compliance, and their absence should have been addressed through a direct request before issuing an enforcement notice.
Relying on Unqualified Testimony: The authorities relied on statements from untrained occupants of the property to make assumptions about compliance. These individuals lack the necessary knowledge to assess technical maintenance standards, making their observations unreliable.
No Effort to Resolve Informally: The authorities did not attempt to resolve the matter informally through an advisory letter or initial request for documentation. Issuing a formal enforcement notice without any prior attempt to communicate constructively is a disproportionate approach.

Key Alleged Deficiencies – Never requested docs

1. Article 9 – Fire Risk Assessment

Allegation: No fire risk assessment in place.

Rebuttal:

A Fire Risk Assessment had been completed and was available at all times.
The Fire Inspector made no effort to request or review this document before alleging its absence.
The claim of non-compliance was based solely on assumption, not verification.

Subsequent Events Confirm the Error:

During the reinspection on 7 April 2025, the same Fire Risk Assessment was reviewed and accepted by Fire Authority staff without issue.
No criticism or finding was made against its content or adequacy.
This proves that the original allegation was not the result of actual deficiency, but rather of failure to investigate properly.

Legal and Procedural Implications:

Under Article 9(6) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, it is the duty of the enforcing authority to assess actual compliance, not speculate or presume non-compliance.
The failure to even request the Risk Assessment before alleging its absence violates basic administrative fairness and due diligence obligations.
This kind of procedural shortfall also breaches the Regulators’ Code, which mandates that enforcement action should be preceded by engagement, clear guidance, and opportunity to comply voluntarily, especially where no imminent danger exists.

Final Words on this deficiency

The Article 9 allegation was materially false, procedurally improper, and strategically reckless.
It contributed directly to an unnecessary enforcement process, legal proceedings, and associated costs — all of which could have been avoided by a single, simple request for documentation.
This is a textbook example of premature enforcement based on assumption rather than fact, and any resulting costs must be seen as a direct consequence of the Authority’s failure to follow lawful process.

2. Article 11 – Fire Safety Arrangements

Allegation: No documented emergency plan or arrangements.

Rebuttal:

These materials were presented during the second inspection and deemed satisfactory.
Again, no opportunity was given to present this before formal action.

Full Examination Of Article 11

Article 17 – Maintenance of Fire Systems and Doors

Allegation: Inadequate maintenance of fire alarm, emergency lighting, and fire doors.

Rebuttal:

Fire alarm maintenance and emergency lighting checks were in place.
Logbooks of weekly and monthly tests were available, but had never been requested by the Authority before enforcement.
Fire doors:
- Intumescent seals and gaps were inspected and maintained routinely.
- Minor wear-and-tear does not constitute non-compliance under BS 8214 unless it breaches the performance standard, which was not shown here.

Article 21A – Failure to Provide Fire Safety Info to Tenants

Allegation: Fire safety information not communicated to residents.

Rebuttal:

The Authority never asked to see this material and simply presumed its absence.

Article 14 – Emergency Routes and Exits

Allegation: Obstructed escape routes (bins, fridge/freezers, DB board).

Rebuttal:

The alleged obstructions (bins, etc.) were minor, temporary, and in fact removed immediately following inspection, acknowledged in the report itself.
The electric distribution board was installed in compliance with electrical regulations. Its position had never been identified as a hazard in prior inspections. ( But we took initiative to follow the recommendation of the fire authorities to box in the distribution board )
No fire load or escape time study was conducted to justify this finding.

🔒 Rebuttal to Article 11 – Fire Safety Arrangements

Allegation: No documented emergency plan or fire safety arrangements were in place.

Rebuttal

During the second inspection (7 April 2025), the materials were reviewed and deemed satisfactory, proving they had been in place and fit for purpose all along.

Rebuttal to Article 8 – General Fire Precautions

Allegation: That general fire precautions, including electrical safety and escape route arrangements, were not adequately implemented.

Rebuttal Summary:

A valid updated Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) was completed on 23 November 2024, and proactively emailed to the inspecting officer on 12 December 2024 — well before any compliance deadline.
In the same correspondence, I confirmed full compliance with all fire precaution requests, including those relating to electrical systems, emergency lighting, and escape route obstructions.
My email included reasonable, detailed questions seeking clarification on specific points of law — such as:
- Whether a consumer unit must legally be boxed in if already metal-clad;
- The basis for classifying fridges as “huge risk” in corridors, given their ubiquity;
- The claim that the HMO is “commercial” for the purposes of inspection frequency, when the legal definition under the Housing Act 2004 continues to define HMOs as dwelling-houses, taxed as such under council tax.
No legal citations, case law, or statutory references were provided in response to my request for clarification — only generalised assertions about fire risk “experience.”
Importantly, I invited the Fire Authority to revisit the premises voluntarily, and offered full cooperation in arranging reinspection — well before they took further step

My Cooperation and Willingness:

I consistently demonstrated my willingness to cooperate, provide information, and resolve the issues. My attempts to seek clarification and present evidence of compliance were ignored. Despite this, I have complied with all the requirements outlined in the enforcement notice.

Financial Burden:

It is unjust to demand costs for a process that was flawed from the beginning. The authorities’ failure to follow standard procedures, seek documentation, and assess compliance fairly directly led to the escalation of this matter. Holding me financially responsible for their own mistakes is not only unfair but sets a concerning precedent for future enforcement actions.

Step 1: Identifying Potential Procedural Missteps

Failed to Communicate Properly: If they did not make reasonable efforts to gather information or clarify issues before issuing the enforcement notice. Evidence 1.1
Did Not Request Necessary Documentation: They failed to request essential records, such as fire alarm and emergency lighting maintenance records.
Did Not Provide Specific Legal References: their demands lacked clear legal backing or specific legislation.
Escalated Without Just Cause: They issued the enforcement notice and escalated the matter without adequately exploring informal resolutions.

No Request for Maintenance Records:

- Nowhere in follow-up communications did the authorities specifically request maintenance records for the fire alarm or emergency lighting systems.
- In my appeal document, I clearly stated that the fire alarm system and emergency lighting were functional and regularly maintained, yet no specific request for proof of maintenance was made.

The absence of such requests indicates a lack of due diligence in assessing compliance before escalating to enforcement.

Typically, before issuing a formal enforcement notice, authorities should attempt to gather all relevant information to accurately assess compliance. Not requesting these records indicates a lack of due diligence.

Failed to Communicate Properly: They did not make reasonable efforts to gather information or clarify issues before issuing the enforcement notice.

Initial Observations:

No Request for Maintenance Records: They never asked for fire alarm maintenance records or emergency lighting maintenance records. This could indicate a failure to properly assess compliance before issuing the enforcement notice. Typically, authorities should request relevant documentation as part of their due diligence.

Lack of Clear Legal References: In their responses, they often failed to cite specific legislation or case law, especially regarding the fridges in escape routes and fuse board enclosures. This lack of precision can demonstrate procedural shortcomings.

Absence of Constructive Dialogue: Although we made multiple attempts to understand their position and provide evidence, they seemingly did not engage in a productive dialogue to resolve issues informally

Supporting Evidence from my Documents:

My detailed emails request specific legal references and attempt to discuss the matter rationally.

The Freedom of Information (FOI) request, where I sought clarity and evidence.

The council’s enforcement notice and follow-up emails — I can analyse whether they explicitly requested fire alarm or emergency lighting maintenance records.

Here are the procedural missteps by the fire safety authorities

Failure to Request Essential Documentation:

The authorities never requested fire alarm maintenance records or emergency lighting maintenance records before issuing the enforcement notice. This is evident from in my appeal, where we emphasised that no such requests were made and that the fire alarm system was functional.
Typically, before issuing a formal enforcement notice, authorities should attempt to gather all relevant information to accurately assess compliance. Not requesting these records indicates a lack of due diligence.

Lack of Specific Legal References:

The enforcement notice and subsequent communications lacked specific legal references or case law to justify their claims. For instance:
- The demand for a 5-year EICR was made, but no specific legislation was cited. ( Email 18th Dec about sending FOI and EICR )
- Claims about the fire risk of fridges and fuse boards were presented without solid legal backing, case law, or peer-reviewed studies.
Proper enforcement procedures should include citing the exact legal basis for compliance requirements. This lack of legal references suggests procedural shortcomings

Escalation Without Exploring Informal Resolution:

I repeatedly attempted to discuss the matter informally, providing evidence of compliance and seeking legal clarification. The authorities moved directly to formal enforcement without considering an informal resolution.
Many of the deficiencies noted, such as minor gaps in fire doors and the positioning of fridges, could have been addressed with a simple advisory letter. This would align with proportionality principles in enforcement.

Misapplication of Legislation:

The authorities treated the HMO as a commercial property rather than a dwelling house. We provided evidence, including references to council tax classification, indicating that the property is taxed and classified as a residential dwelling.
Applying incorrect legal standards could indicate a misinterpretation of the law, which may invalidate the grounds for enforcement and subsequent cost recovery

Inconsistent and Vague Requirements:

The enforcement notice demanded compliance with standards like fire-resistant enclosures for fuse boards but failed to specify the exact legal basis or relevant standards.
The vague nature of these requirements complicates compliance and demonstrates a lack of clear guidance.

Evidence of Compliance Ignored:

I submitted a satisfactory Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR), demonstrating compliance with electrical safety standards.
We also confirmed that the fire alarm and emergency lighting systems were functional and appropriately maintained. The enforcement notice disregarded this evidence.

If the intention is to highlight deficiencies, such as a lack of maintenance, the correct procedure should be followed. Firstly, they should write to me formally, requesting the necessary documents to verify compliance. If these documents are not available, they could issue an enforcement notice. However, a formal letter requesting clarification would be more appropriate initially.

If they confirm through a responsible person that maintenance tasks, such as those for emergency lighting, have not been completed, and there is no response to their inquiries, they may reasonably assume that no maintenance has taken place.

It appears they are basing their conclusions on statements from untrained individuals found on the premises who may not be fully aware of our maintenance procedures. This makes it challenging to substantiate their claims in court, despite our efforts to fulfill these responsibilities

Argument:

Failure to Follow Proper Procedures and Verify Compliance Before Escalation

Lack of Due Diligence:

1. - The fire safety authorities should have first requested documentation related to the maintenance of the fire alarm system, emergency lighting, and any other relevant fire safety measures or any maintenance of the house.
  - If the authorities genuinely believed there was a lack of maintenance, they should have contacted the Responsible Person to confirm whether proper records were available.
  - Instead of issuing an enforcement notice prematurely, the authorities could have issued an informal advisory letter requesting documentation. This approach would be consistent with the principle of proportionality and fairness.

Absence of a Proper Investigation:

1. - The authorities seemingly relied on statements from untrained occupants of the property to assess compliance. These individuals are not qualified to comment on technical maintenance procedures.
  - No formal request for maintenance records was made, despite our willingness to provide evidence of compliance. This disregard for an available solution demonstrates a failure to properly investigate the situation before escalating.

Procedural Missteps:

1. - According to Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO), enforcement authorities should make reasonable efforts to ascertain compliance before issuing a formal enforcement notice.
    Fire Safety Order
  - If there were concerns about the maintenance of emergency lighting or fire alarms, it was the responsibility of the authorities to request these records directly from the Responsible Person.
  - Had they issued a request for documentation and received no response, only then would it be reasonable to consider further action.

Impact of Procedural Failures:

- The premature escalation to an enforcement notice without seeking maintenance documentation not only bypassed due process but also unjustly subjected us to legal proceedings and financial burdens.
- The decision to seek costs for legal expenses is disproportionate, considering their procedural failures contributed to the escalation of this matter.

Issuing an enforcement notice without requesting maintenance records for the fire alarm and emergency lighting systems is a significant procedural flaw. Here’s why this approach is problematic and potentially unjust:

Issuing an enforcement notice without requesting maintenance records for the fire alarm and emergency lighting systems is a significant procedural flaw. Here’s why this approach is problematic and potentially unjust:

1. Failure to Verify Compliance Properly:

Proper Assessment Standard: The standard procedure for assessing compliance involves requesting maintenance records to verify whether fire alarm systems and emergency lighting are maintained correctly.
Lack of Verification: By failing to ask for these records, the authorities made assumptions about non-compliance based on limited information.
Inadequate Evidence: Relying solely on statements from untrained tenants, rather than verifying facts with the Responsible Person (we), is an improper method of assessment. Tenants are typically not qualified to assess technical maintenance standards.

2. Breach of Fair Process and Due Diligence:

Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO): Fire Safety Order The RRFSO emphasises that enforcement should be based on factual assessments, not assumptions. Proper documentation, like maintenance records, is essential to demonstrate compliance.
Proportionality: Issuing a formal enforcement notice without first requesting evidence violates the principle of proportionality. The authorities should have attempted an informal approach, such as requesting records or issuing an advisory letter, before escalating to enforcement.

3. Missed Opportunity for Resolution:

Informal Resolution: If the authorities had requested the maintenance records, we could have demonstrated compliance and addressed any concerns. This approach could have resolved the matter without formal enforcement.
Evidence of Compliance: Our fire alarm system and emergency lighting were functioning, yet the authorities never verified this through formal requests for records. If they had asked, we could have provided the necessary documentation to demonstrate proper maintenance.

4. Questionable Grounds for Enforcement:

Insufficient Basis: An enforcement notice based on incomplete information, without factual verification, undermines its legitimacy.
Reliability of Testimony: Statements from tenants who may not fully understand fire safety maintenance cannot be considered a reliable basis for enforcement. The fire safety authorities are expected to base their actions on evidence and proper investigation.

The authorities’ decision to issue an enforcement notice without requesting maintenance records or verifying compliance through the Responsible Person is procedurally flawed. It contradicts the principles of fairness, proportionality, and thorough investigation that underpin effective enforcement. This procedural failure strengthens our argument that the enforcement notice and the subsequent application for costs are unreasonable.

Based on these points, the fire safety authorities acted prematurely and without due diligence, which undermines the justification for seeking costs. The lack of procedural fairness and inadequate effort to engage in an informal resolution before escalating to formal enforcement further supports the argument against their application for costs.

What procedure would be deemed reasonable before the fire authority issues an enforcement notice?

Before issuing an enforcement notice, fire authorities are generally expected to follow a fair and proportionate procedure, in line with principles of good enforcement practice and public law. Here’s what’s deemed a reasonable procedure:

Initial Inspection or Visit

The fire authority should conduct an inspection and document any potential deficiencies or breaches. They should explain their findings during or after the visit and provide an opportunity for discussion.

Informal Communication and Advice

Best practice under the Regulators’ Code (which applies to public enforcement bodies in the UK) recommends:

Offering informal advice and guidance first.
Giving the responsible person an opportunity to voluntarily comply.
Providing clear written communication outlining the issues and how they can be rectified without formal enforcement action.

Opportunity for Representation

The responsible person (we) should be given a chance to:

Respond to the identified deficiencies.
Ask for clarification or evidence.
Make representations or suggest alternative solutions.

Timeframe for Voluntary Compliance

A reasonable period should be given to rectify the issues informally. Only if the responsible person fails to act within this timeframe should enforcement escalate.

Proportionality and Necessity

Enforcement notices should be a last resort, only after:

Informal efforts have failed.
There’s clear evidence of ongoing non-compliance or a serious immediate risk.

Clear Legal Basis

The notice should reference the specific legal duties breached (typically under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005).
Fire Safety Order

It must specify what actions are required, why, and by when.

In other words:

The authority is supposed to educate and encourage compliance before they enforce. If they skip informal steps or fail to engage meaningfully, this can be challenged as unreasonable or disproportionate.

Enforcement and sanctions for non-compliance (accessible)

My Examination of Enforcement Letter and Appeal to Court

Conclusion:

Given the procedural errors, lack of proper investigation, and my demonstrated cooperation, I request that the application for costs be denied. The financial burden resulting from the authorities’ premature and disproportionate response should not fall on a Responsible Person who acted in good faith.

Closing Statement:

The request for £1,472.17 in court costs from the fire safety authorities is unfair and unjustified due to their failure to follow proper procedures.

Before issuing the enforcement notice, the authorities never asked for essential maintenance records for the fire alarm and emergency lighting systems. These records are key to assessing compliance, and I would have provided them if requested. Ignoring this basic step shows a lack of proper investigation and a failure to act fairly.

Instead of properly checking facts, the authorities relied on statements from untrained occupants of the property. These individuals are not qualified to assess maintenance standards, and their opinions cannot replace factual evidence. The authorities should have contacted me, the Responsible Person, to get accurate information. By skipping this step, they made incorrect assumptions.

The decision to issue a formal enforcement notice right away—without first trying to address the issues informally—was excessive. A simple letter requesting documents would have been more reasonable. If the authorities had followed a fair process, we could have resolved any concerns without the need for court action.

Requesting costs of £1,472.17 for a flawed and rushed process is unreasonable. It is not right to make me pay for mistakes that could have been avoided if the authorities had followed proper procedures. I acted in good faith to comply and resolve the situation, but the authorities chose a harsh approach instead of working together.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the application for costs be denied. Making me pay for the consequences of their poor investigation would be unfair and unjust.

Had the authorities followed the correct procedures, they would have:

- Communicated directly with the Responsible Person to seek maintenance documentation.
- Given proper and specific legal references to justify their claims.

Issued a preliminary advisory letter to address potential issues informally.

Evaluated the existing evidence of compliance, including the satisfactory EICR and confirmation of functioning emergency systems.

The premature escalation to a formal enforcement notice, compounded by vague and inconsistent justifications, is a disproportionate response that contradicts the principles of proportionality and fairness outlined in enforcement guidance. The Responsible Person’s willingness to cooperate and address concerns was evident from the outset, yet the authorities chose a punitive approach rather than constructive dialogue.

Imposing costs for a process that was flawed from the beginning shifts the financial burden of the authorities’ own missed steps onto the Responsible Person, who acted in good faith to comply. The requested costs appear punitive rather than compensatory, serving no reasonable purpose other than to penalise a Responsible Person who has already taken all reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

For these reasons, the application for costs of £1,472.17 should be rejected. Holding the Responsible Person financially liable for the authorities’ inadequate and unjustifiable approach would constitute a severe miscarriage of justice.