Naila Tabassam v Manchester City Council
[2024] UKUT 93 (LC)
Park Green Investments Limited v Teignbridge District Council
15 December 2023
[2023] UKUT 292 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord was fined for not fixing a fire alarm and clearing obstructions. He couldn't access the flat to fix the alarm, and a tenant kept putting obstructions back. The judge reduced the fine but didn't fully consider the landlord's excuses. A higher court overturned the fine, saying the judge should have properly considered the landlord's situation and didn't need to strictly follow the council's rules if they seemed unfair.
Key Facts
- •Park Green Investments Ltd (appellant) appealed a First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decision reducing a £10,000 financial penalty to £5,000 under section 249A, Housing Act 2004.
- •The penalty was for non-compliance with an improvement notice requiring fire alarm repair in one flat and clearing obstructions in communal areas.
- •A recalcitrant leaseholder repeatedly refused access and restored obstructions, hindering the appellant's compliance.
- •The FTT reduced the penalty but didn't explicitly address the 'reasonable excuse' defence under section 30(4), Housing Act 2004.
- •The FTT also misinterpreted the Council's penalty policy, particularly regarding points for a first offence.
Legal Principles
A local housing authority must take enforcement action for category 1 hazards (most serious) under section 5, Housing Act 2004, and may do so for category 2 hazards under section 7.
Housing Act 2004
An improvement notice must specify remedial action, timelines, and the recipient (sections 11-19, Schedule 1). For flats, the notice can be served on the freeholder or leaseholder (Schedule 1, paragraph 3). For common parts, it can be served on the building owner (Schedule 1, paragraph 4).
Housing Act 2004
Failure to comply with an improvement notice is a criminal offence, but a 'reasonable excuse' is a defence (section 30(4)).
Housing Act 2004
Appeals against financial penalties are re-hearings where the FTT makes its own decision (Schedule 13A, paragraph 10). The FTT must consider the authority's enforcement policy but isn't bound by it.
Housing Act 2004
The FTT should start with the local authority's policy but can depart from it in certain circumstances (e.g., mitigating/aggravating circumstances, policy fettering discretion).
London Borough of Waltham Forest v Marshall [2020] UKUT 35 (LC); Sutton v Norwich City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 20; Kazi v Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2023] UKUT 263 (LC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; financial penalty set aside.
The FTT failed to properly consider the 'reasonable excuse' defence under section 30(4) regarding the appellant's inability to access the flat and the leaseholder's obstruction. The FTT also misinterpreted the council's penalty policy and treated it as binding despite finding parts of it illogical.