Nottingham City Council v Housing 35 Plus Limited
[2024] UKUT 349 (LC)
Clearsprings Ready Homes Limited, R (on the application of) v Swindon Magistrates’ Court
26 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2023 (Admin)
High Court
A company providing housing to asylum seekers was charged with breaking rules about shared housing. A lower court judge made a mistake in understanding the law. The High Court corrected the mistake but agreed the company should still face the charges because a small part of the law was unclear. The High Court clarified the law to fix this problem, ensuring all shared housing is covered by the rules.
Key Facts
- •Clearsprings Ready Homes Ltd (Claimant) contracted with the Home Office (HO) to provide asylum seeker accommodation.
- •Claimant leased properties, operating them as HMOs, and obtained licenses from Swindon Borough Council (Council).
- •Council brought 38 charges against Claimant for breaching the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006.
- •Claimant argued it wasn't a 'manager' under the Regulations, leading to judicial review of the District Judge's decision to refuse dismissal of charges.
- •The key legal question concerned the definition of 'person managing' under section 263(3) of the Housing Act 2004 and its interaction with the Management Regulations.
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation requires identifying the meaning of words in context, aiming to ascertain Parliament's objectively imputed intention.
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2001] AC 349
Courts avoid constructions leading to absurd results, including those that are unworkable, impracticable, illogical, or futile.
Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation, Section 13.1
Courts can correct obvious drafting errors in legislation, adding, omitting, or substituting words in plain cases of mistakes, while ensuring it doesn't cross into judicial legislation.
Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice [2000] 1 WLR 586
Penal legislation is strictly construed, giving fair warning of potential liability; however, this can be overridden by clear objective indicators of legislative intent.
Bogdanic v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2872
Settled practice, where authoritative interpretation exists for a significant period without problems, creates a strong presumption against overturning it.
N and H v Lewisham Borough Council [2015] AC 1259
Judicial review of interlocutory decisions in prosecutions is exceptional; alternative remedies should be considered.
Platinum Crown Investments Ltd v North East Essex Magistrates’ Court [2017] EWHC 2761
Outcomes
The District Judge's decision was overturned.
The District Judge erred in her interpretation of section 263(3) of the 2004 Act; her conclusion that the legislation was wholly ineffective regarding asylum seeker accommodation was unsustainable. The court found that the Housing Act 2004 already provided a mechanism for licensing HMOs even in situations where the occupiers didn't pay rent.
The application for judicial review was refused.
While the District Judge's reasoning was flawed, the outcome (refusal to dismiss the prosecution) was ultimately correct. The court identified a drafting error in Regulation 2(c) of the Management Regulations, which excluded HMOs without a 'person managing' from its scope. The court rectified this error by interpreting 'the manager' to include both 'the person managing' and 'the person in control', aligning with the overall legislative intent.