Key Facts
- •Naomi Rachel Knapp (appellant) appealed a 5-year banning order from letting housing or engaging in letting agency/property management work issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT).
- •The order stemmed from eight convictions for banning order offences related to managing three HMO properties, including fire safety and maintenance violations.
- •The magistrates imposed fines totaling £22,000.
- •Knapp had been a landlord for over 30 years, specializing in housing vulnerable tenants.
- •Bristol City Council (respondent) argued the offences, while not individually serious, demonstrated a pattern of poor management.
Legal Principles
A local housing authority can apply for a banning order against someone convicted of a banning order offence.
Housing and Planning Act 2016, section 15(1)
The FTT must consider the seriousness of the offence, previous convictions, inclusion in the rogue landlords database, and the order's likely effects when deciding on a banning order.
Housing and Planning Act 2016, section 16(4)
Banning orders prohibit 'letting housing' in England, which includes granting licenses (but not tenancies/licenses exceeding 21 years).
Housing and Planning Act 2016, section 14(1)
The level of fines imposed for an offense can be a factor in assessing its seriousness for a banning order.
Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Banning Order Offences) Regulations 2018, Regulation 3; Guidance at paragraph 3.3
An appellate tribunal will not overturn a lower tribunal's decision unless there's an identifiable flaw in reasoning, such as a gap in logic or failure to consider material facts.
Sutton v Norwich City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 20
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The FTT's consideration of the seriousness of the offences was not flawed. While the FTT considered the level of fines, it did not rely solely on them; it considered the appellant's guilty plea, the Council's assessment, the Guidance, and the Council's policy. The FTT correctly interpreted the scope of the banning order as applying to existing tenancies, given the statutory provisions for exceptions. The other grounds of appeal lacked merit.
The stay on the FTT's order regarding existing tenancies was lifted, with a new effective date of December 1, 2023.
This allowed time for Knapp to make alternative arrangements for existing tenancies, mirroring the original six-month period granted by the FTT.