Hasan Kazi v Bradford Metropolitan District Council
[2023] UKUT 263 (LC)
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Hongmei Wang
29 January 2024
[2024] UKUT 24 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A council fined a homeowner for problems in their rented house. The court said the initial warning letter was unclear, but the homeowner had enough information from other documents to know what the problems were, so the fine stands, but the case needs another hearing to consider all the facts fairly.
Key Facts
- •Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (Appellant) imposed two financial penalties totaling £21,000 on Hongmei Wang (Respondent) for breaches of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006.
- •The penalties stemmed from fire safety and maintenance deficiencies found during an HMO inspection.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed the Respondent's appeal, finding the notices of intent insufficient to allow meaningful representations.
- •The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considered whether the notices satisfied the statutory requirement to state reasons and the consequences of inadequate reasoning.
Legal Principles
The effect of procedural defects depends on Parliament's intended consequences of non-compliance, not simply whether the steps are mandatory or directory. Non-compliance should not render proceedings a nullity unless clearly intended by Parliament and causing injustice.
R v Home Sec., Ex p Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354; Director of Public Prosecutions v McFarlane [2020] 1 Cr. App. R. 4
Adequate compliance with statutory requirements may suffice, even where strict compliance isn't met. Interpretation requires considering the statute's words, subject matter, purpose, and potential effects of non-compliance.
Newbold v Coal Authority [2014] 1 WLR 1288
A notice of intent under section 249A, Housing Act 2004, must provide sufficient reasons to enable the recipient to understand the alleged conduct and make representations. Reasons can be across multiple documents if clear.
Waltham Forest LBC v Younis [2019] UKUT 362 (LC)
A defective notice of intent doesn't automatically invalidate the entire procedure. The question is whether the recipient received sufficient information in good time to respond fairly.
Nash v Birmingham Crown Court [2005] EWHC 338
The statement of reasons in a notice of intent must be directly referable to the specific breach, identifying clearly and accurately the non-compliance.
Maharaj v Liverpool City Council [2022] UKUT 140 (LC)
The validity of a notice is assessed objectively, considering what a reasonable recipient, aware of the relevant context, would understand.
Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co. Ltd [1997] AC 749
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the Council's appeal.
The notices of intent, while vague, were not invalid because the respondent had received sufficient information through prior communications (a schedule of works and photographs) to understand the alleged breaches and make representations. The court found that a reasonable recipient would have understood the deficiencies.
The case was remitted to the FTT for a rehearing.
The FTT's original decision was deemed unfair for not giving the parties adequate time to address the validity of the notices. The rehearing will consider the respondent's evidence about the property management and the mitigating circumstances related to COVID-19 restrictions, and a revised list of specific breaches based on the schedule of works.