Ipolotas Naujokas v Fenland District Council
[2023] UKUT 190 (LC)
Hasan Kazi V Bradford MDC
6 June 2023
[2023] UKUT 128 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Mr Kazi got a big fine for problems with his house. He was late appealing, saying he was ill. The first court threw out his appeal without properly looking at his reason. A higher court said that was unfair and let him appeal the fine.
Key Facts
- •Mr Kazi, a 73-year-old freeholder of a house in multiple occupation (HMO), received a £13,250 financial penalty from Bradford MDC for non-compliance with the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007.
- •His appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was struck out as out of time.
- •Mr Kazi appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), arguing that the FTT inadequately considered his explanation for the delay (illness and contracting Covid-19).
Legal Principles
The FTT has discretion to extend time limits for appeals.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
A financial penalty can be imposed as an alternative to prosecution for housing offences under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004.
Housing Act 2004, section 249A
Appeals against financial penalties are permitted under Schedule 13A of the Housing Act 2004.
Housing Act 2004, Schedule 13A
The FTT must give adequate reasons for its decisions, engaging with the reasons given by the appellant for any delay.
Implicit in the UTLC's decision
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the FTT's decision to strike out Mr Kazi's appeal.
The FTT failed to adequately consider Mr Kazi's explanation for the delay in filing his appeal, which was based on illness and contracting Covid-19. The UT found the FTT's reasoning generic and insufficient.
Mr Kazi's appeal against the financial penalty was reinstated.
The UT found the FTT's decision to be flawed due to inadequate reasoning.