Hasan Kazi v Bradford Metropolitan District Council
[2023] UKUT 263 (LC)
Leicester City Council v Nikita Morjaria
7 June 2023
[2023] UKUT 129 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord was fined for having an illegal house-share. A lower court reduced the fine, but a higher court reinstated a larger fine because the lower court didn't look at all the evidence properly. The higher court said the landlord knew what she was doing and caused harm to her tenants for a long time.
Key Facts
- •Ms Nikita Morjaria was found to be in control of an unlicensed HMO, contrary to section 72, Housing Act 2004.
- •Leicester City Council imposed a £29,817 penalty, based on its own policy.
- •The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) reduced the penalty to £3,900, finding the offence proven only for a single day.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered an appeal by Leicester City Council.
- •The property, 100 Bluegates Road, Leicester, had five habitable rooms, four let as bed-sitting rooms, and a fifth room (Room 5) too small to be legally let as a bedroom except for a child under ten.
- •The Council's investigation revealed evidence suggesting Room 5 had been occupied, despite Ms Morjaria's denial.
- •The FTT considered only evidence from one witness, Mr Sona, in isolation when determining the duration of the offense.
- •The UT found the FTT's assessment flawed due to its consideration of Mr Sona's evidence in isolation, and its incomplete appreciation of the offense's duration and seriousness.
Legal Principles
Proof in financial penalty proceedings under section 249A, 2004 Act is required to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt).
Housing Act 2004, section 249A
An appellate tribunal will only interfere with a first instance tribunal's factual finding if a critical finding of fact is unsupported by the evidence or the decision is one no reasonable judge could have reached.
Haringey LBC v Ahmed [2017] EWCA Civ 1861
The FTT should start from the local housing authority's policy and consider whether its objects will be met if not followed; however, the FTT is entitled to vary the penalty if, after affording the policy considerable weight, it disagrees with the authority's conclusions.
Marshall v Waltham Forest LBC [2020] 1 WLR 3187
The “polluter pays” principle is reflected in the ability of authorities to use financial penalties to meet enforcement costs, not by adding costs as a separate component of the penalty.
Rent Repayment Orders and Financial Penalties (Amounts Recovered) (England) Regulations 2017
Outcomes
The UT set aside the FTT's decision to reduce the penalty.
The FTT's assessment of the evidence was flawed because it considered Mr Sona's evidence in isolation and failed to fully appreciate the duration and seriousness of Ms Morjaria's offence.
The UT imposed a penalty of £18,000.
This reflects Ms Morjaria's high culpability, aggravating factors, and harm to tenants over a protracted period. The UT did not adopt the Council's policy which the UT found to be disproportionate and unjust.