VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Financial Penalty for Unlicensed HMO Dismissed by Consent

Case No.

📌 In brief

The claimant appealed a financial penalty for not licensing their property as a house in multiple occupation (HMO). The appeal was dismissed by mutual agreement between the claimant and the council.

⚖️ Legal holding

Failure to license a house in multiple occupation (HMO) results in a financial penalty under the Housing Act 2004.

Topics

financial penaltieslicensing requirementsHMO regulations

Provisions

Housing Act 2004 s.72Housing Act 2004 s.249AHousing Act 2004 Schedule 13A

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 2004 s.72

This section establishes offenses related to the licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). It states that if an HMO should be licensed but isn't, an offense is committed by anyone controlling or managing the HMO or by the landlord/licensor who has superior rights over the property. Additionally, it outlines defenses available to those accused, such as proving a reasonable excuse or taking all necessary steps to ensure licensing.

Housing Act 2004 s.249A

This section allows local housing authorities to impose financial penalties on individuals whose conduct constitutes a relevant housing offense, such as failing to license an HMO. The penalty can be up to £40,000 and cannot be imposed if the individual has already been convicted of the offense or if criminal proceedings are ongoing.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The claimant's appeal against a financial penalty for failing to license an HMO was dismissed by consent.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant appealed a financial penalty for failing to license a house in multiple occupation (HMO) under the Housing Act 2004. The appeal was dismissed by consent of the parties.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

1

Case Reference

: CAM/34UF/HNA/2019/0007

Property

: 57 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent

: [redacted] Representative

: Mr [COUNSEL], Senior Solicitor

Dates of Application : 11th April 2019

Type of Application : Appeal against a financial penalty – Section 249A & Schedule 13A to the Housing Act 2004

Tribunal

: Judge JR Morris Mrs M [NAME] of Directions : 13th May 2019

Date of Hearing & Decision & Order : 17th September 2019

____________________________________

DECISION & ORDER ____________________________________

Decision

The Tribunal by consent of the parties, orders that: 1. The Appeal is dismissed, and 2. There is no order for costs.

Reasons

Background

1) The application relates to 57 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (the Property) and is in respect of a financial penalty issued to the Applicant by the Respondent under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004 for FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 failure to licence a house in multiple occupation (HMO) contrary to section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004. The total amount of the penalty is £4,750 being £4,000 penalty and £750.00 costs.

2) Following investigations that were completed on 8th August 2018 a Notice of Intent was issued on 25th January 2019 giving the Applicant an opportunity to make representations by 26th February 2019.

3) The Applicant made representations on 8th March 2019 stating that the Property consisted of two flats, a two-bedroom flat on the ground floor and a four-bedroom flat on the first and second floors. As the Property was two properties, neither more than two storeys, he did not require an HMO licence.

4) The Respondent found from the evidence adduced that notwithstanding the representations made by the Applicant, the Property came within the meaning of a “house in multiple occupation” under section 254 of the Housing Act 2004.

5) A Final Penalty Notice was issued on 12th March 2019 and the Applicant applied to the Tribunal on 11th April 2019.

6) The appeal was to be by way of a re-hearing of the Respondent’s decision to impose the penalty and/or the amount of the penalty, but it may be determined having regard to matters of which the Respondent was previously unaware. Further details were contained in the Annex on the last page of the directions.

7) Immediately prior to the hearing on 17th September 2019, which was attended by the Applicant and Mr [COUNSEL], solicitor for the Respondent, the parties reached an agreement as set out below.

The Parties CONSENT that the Tribunal:

1. UPON considering the Applicant’s appeal under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004 in respect of a Financial Penalty imposed by one final penalty notice dated 25th January 2019;

2. AND UPON the Applicant admitting the facts stated in the aforementioned notice, including the conduct to which it relates, being conduct within the meaning of secton 72(1) and 234(3) of the Housing Act 2004;

3. AND UPON the parties having reached agreement in full and final settlement of the appeal;

4. AND UPON the Respondent agreeing, in consideration of the Applicant’s admission, in the exercise of its power under paragraph 9 of Schedule 13A to the Housing Act 2004, to reduce the total amount of the

3 aforementioned penalty of £4,750.00 and more particularly to reduce the penalty for the Applicant’s conduct:

Under Section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 to £3,750;

5. AND UPON the Applicant agreeing to pay the aforementioned penalty by consecutive monthly instalments of £1,250.00 by direct debit, the first such instalment being payable on 25th October 2019 and thereafter on the 25th day of each of the following months until the penalty is paid;

6. AND UPON the Respondent, and without prejudice to its right to enforce the aforementioned penalty upon default of the above payment agreement, agreeing to accept the above payment;

7. AND UPON the Applicant agreeing, in consideration of the above that this appeal should be dismissed.

8. AND Upon hearing the Applicant and Solicitor for the Respondent

Orders that:

1. The appeal is dismissed

2. There is no order for costs.

Judge JR Morris

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

3. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The claimant successfully demonstrated that the landlord did not follow proper consultation procedures for major works.
  • The claimant proved that urgent fire safety works allowed the landlord to bypass consultation under specific conditions.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The claimant was found to have conducted proceedings dishonestly and unreasonably.
  • The appeal against a financial penalty was not brought within the required 28-day period.
  • Operating an HMO without a license is considered a relevant housing offense.
  • Not complying with selective licensing schemes and obtaining a license for properties in designated areas is penalized.
  • The local housing authority can impose a financial penalty if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person's conduct amounts to a relevant housing offense.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the tenant agreed to pay a reduced financial penalty of £3,750.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about a financial penalty imposed for failure to license a house in multiple occupation.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to dismiss the appeal because the tenant admitted the violation and agreed to pay the reduced penalty.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 72(1), 249A, and 254 of the Housing Act 2004 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the admission of the violation by the tenant.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have the necessary licenses for their property to avoid financial penalties.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the admission of the violation by the tenant and the relevant sections of the Housing Act 2004.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.