Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Patel [2010] UKUT 334 (LC)

This appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) was in relation to the interpretation of “imminent risk” which is a requirement of emergency remedial action or an emergency prohibition order. However, interesting comments were also made about assessments (highlights added):

It is to be noted that what the inspector was required to do was to produce an assessment of the likelihood of any one case occurring in a 12 month period and the percentage possibilities of each class of harm, not in relation to the actual occupiers but in relation to an occupier of 65 or over [excess cold]. [para 29]

The factual basis of the score for Excess Cold here was that the house was without central heating, with space heating being provided by halogen heaters.  The actual occupants of the house were not relevant to the scoring system, since the score had to be based on the likelihood of a “relevant occupier” suffering harm as the result of the hazard, and the relevant occupier for Excess Cold is a person aged 65 or more… [para 38]

The local authority had calculated excess cold hazard due to the central heating not working as a 1 in 10 chance of a 31.6 percent possibility of death or other serious harm “imminently” despite the fact that the occupiers had ... Please login or signup to continue reading this content

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close