David Dawson v Nottingham City Council
[2023] UKFTT 851 (GRC)
Cavendish Lettings Limited v Nottingham City Council
16 October 2023
[2023] UKFTT 850 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A landlord was fined for renting out a house that wasn't energy efficient enough. Even though they fixed the problem later, the judge said they'd broken the rules for too long and kept the fine.
Key Facts
- •Cavendish Lettings Limited appealed a £3,420 financial penalty (originally £3,600) imposed by Nottingham City Council under the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015.
- •The penalty was for breaches of regulation 23 (letting a substandard property) and 37(4)(a) (failure to comply with a compliance notice) concerning Apartment 2, Enfield House, Nottingham.
- •The appellant argued the penalty was inappropriate and unfair, citing improvement works undertaken and a willingness to comply.
- •The respondent argued that the property was let with a substandard EPC and that the appellant failed to comply with a compliance notice.
- •The appeal was heard on the papers.
Legal Principles
An enforcement authority may serve a penalty notice for breaches of regulations 23, 27, or 37(4)(a).
The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, regulation 38
A penalty notice must specify the breach, required actions, timeframe, penalty amount, and appeal process.
The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, regulation 38(2)
An appeal can be made to the First-tier Tribunal on grounds of error of fact, error of law, non-compliance with regulations, or inappropriateness of the penalty notice.
The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, regulation 43
The Tribunal may quash or affirm the penalty notice.
The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, regulation 44(2)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; penalty notice affirmed.
The appellant failed to demonstrate that the penalty was inappropriate given the admitted facts of prolonged non-compliance and failure to respond to the compliance notice. While improvements were made and the penalty reduced, this did not justify quashing it entirely.