Hasan Kazi v Bradford Metropolitan District Council
[2023] UKUT 263 (LC)
Aaron Shorr & Anor v London Borough of Camden
17 July 2024
[2024] UKUT 202 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A couple owned a house in multiple occupation (HMO) without the necessary license. A court fined them, but a higher court decided the husband wasn't fined enough because his wife did most of the managing. The higher court also changed the amounts of the fines to avoid double counting.
Key Facts
- •Aaron Shorr and Hyeon Jeong Ro, a married couple, jointly owned an unlicensed four-bedroom HMO flat.
- •The flat was primarily let and managed by Ms. Ro, with Mr. Shorr assisting only when she was abroad.
- •Camden Council issued eight financial penalty notices totaling £27,000 (£13,500 each) for unlicensed HMO operation and management offences.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) reduced the penalties to £8,000 for Mr. Shorr and £13,000 for Ms. Ro.
- •The appeal concerned the application of the totality principle and the treatment of joint owners.
Legal Principles
Totality Principle in imposing financial penalties for multiple housing offences.
Section 249A, Housing Act 2004
Treatment of joint owners in housing offences where only one is primarily responsible for letting and management.
Section 263, Housing Act 2004
Consideration of local housing authority's enforcement policy by the FTT, while not bound by it.
London Borough of Waltham Forest v Marshall [2020] UKUT 35 (LC)
Appellate tribunal's limited role in reviewing financial penalties; only unreasonable decisions or those with identifiable flaws can be overturned.
Sutton v Norwich City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 20
Avoiding double counting or double punishment when multiple offences stem from the same conduct.
Section 249A(3), Housing Act 2004
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The FTT correctly applied the Council's policy to Ms. Ro, but failed to do so for Mr. Shorr. The FTT also erred in its assessment of proportionality by aggregating penalties for both appellants. Double counting of fire safety issues was identified as a flaw in the calculation of Ms. Ro's penalty.
Penalties against Mr. Shorr set aside; his appeal is to be redetermined.
The FTT failed to properly consider whether a warning, rather than a financial penalty, was appropriate for Mr. Shorr, given his limited involvement in the property management. His actions did not justify a financial penalty.
Penalties against Ms. Ro reduced from £13,000 to £8,000.
The FTT's assessment of proportionality was flawed by aggregating penalties. The court adjusted the penalties to reflect the totality principle, reducing the penalty for the licensing offense and removing the separate penalty for poor lighting, as the fire safety issues were already considered in the fire safety penalty.