THE owner of a derelict former pub in a Bradford village has been refused permission to appeal against a Council decision to make the building safe and bill him for the cost of emergency repairs.

Mohammed Farid now faces paying the £8,000 that Bradford Council says it cost to remove the roof of the former Springfield Hotel, on Market Street in Thornton, after parts of it collapsed into the street.

He must also pay court costs of £3,440.

The building, on the same street as the birthplace of the Brontë sisters, was deemed “dangerous” by Council staff who took the decision to close the road as an emergency measure and to remove the roof in June 2023.

The authority then issued two Building Act notices to Mr Farid advising him that the roof had been removed and that he should renovate or demolish the “ruinous or dilapidated” Victorian building.

The court heard that Mr Farid has not paid for the cost of the repair work and that debt recovery proceedings have been raised against him.

Mr Farid, 58, of Ling Lane in Scarcroft, Leeds, appealed both orders and appeared before Bradford Magistrates’ Court to argue his case, representing himself.

He said he had not received an invoice for the repair work and that the Council “will not chase me for that money”. He said he would not pay until the Council “issued proceedings” and said: “I am in a Catch-22 situation.”

He told the court that he had investigated the Council’s actions via a Freedom of Information request and that his application was “not frivolous”.

He said he was seeking compensation for the Council’s decision to remove the roof.

However, he was told that a compensation application was not before the court, that there was no process to appeal emergency work, and that the application would fail as it was outlined under the wrong part of the Building Act.

Imran Hussain, representing Bradford Council, asked for the application to be dismissed.

He said the building was “already in a ruinous state” prior to the roof having to be removed and added: “Mr Farid would have to satisfy the court that the local authority were not justified in taking action.”

He told the court that Mr Farid would need to provide “expert proof” that the Council’s emergency actions had damaged the former pub and said the Council would halt any enforcement action if Mr Farid was in a position to begin some of the emergency works needed on the building.

Chair of Magistrates Mrs Goode said: “The local authority have taken every effort to avoid these proceedings and have acted fairly and reasonably.”

She said Mr Farid had had an opportunity to take legal advice and awarded costs against him.