Hasan Kazi v Bradford Metropolitan District Council
[2023] UKUT 263 (LC)
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Hasan Kazi
10 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1037
Court of Appeal
A landlord was fined for housing violations. A lower court reduced the fines because of problems with the council’s rules. The Court of Appeal disagreed, saying the rules were fine, and restored the original fines.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Kazi, an experienced landlord, was issued civil penalties by the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council for breaches of the Housing Act 2004 related to his property at 2 Laisteridge Lane, Bradford.
- •The property, a large house converted into 8 flats without planning permission, was an HMO with category 1 and 2 hazards.
- •The Council imposed penalties totaling £47,040.31 for failing to comply with improvement notices and HMO regulations.
- •Mr. Kazi appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT), which upheld the penalties.
- •Mr. Kazi appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which significantly reduced the penalties due to issues with the Council's enforcement policy.
- •The Council appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging aspects of the UT's decision.
Legal Principles
Local housing authorities have the power to impose financial penalties for relevant housing offences under s249A of the Housing Act 2004, with the amount determined by the authority.
Housing Act 2004, s249A
Appeals against penalties imposed under s249A are re-hearings, not challenges to the local authority's policy. Challenges to the policy itself should be brought in the Administrative Court.
Housing Act 2004, Schedule 13A, paragraph 10; Marshall v Waltham Forest LBC [2020] UKUT 35 (LC)
A public body's policy cannot fetter its own discretion.
R v Port of London Authority ex p Kynoch [1919] 1 KB 176; British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the Council's appeal.
The Upper Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Council's enforcement policy, finding it unlawfully fettered discretion. The policy, properly interpreted, does not limit the flexibility in applying mitigating factors.
The penalties for each of the three offences were set at £13,500.
This decision was reached by applying the Council's policy correctly, allowing for appropriate mitigating factors. The Court of Appeal remade the decision using its powers under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.