VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Financial Penalty Notice Invalidated Due to Incorrect Timeframes

Case No.

📌 In brief

In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal found that a Financial Penalty Notice was invalid due to incorrect timeframes for payment and appeals. The ruling was based on the requirements set forth by the Housing Act 2004. Judge Amran Vance made the decision on December 19, 2019.

⚖️ Legal holding

A Financial Penalty Notice must adhere to the precise timeframes set out in the Housing Act 2004.

Topics

Financial Penalty NoticeTimeframe for PaymentAppeal Rights

Provisions

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

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 2004 s.249A

The Housing Act 2004, Section 249A allows a local housing authority to impose a financial penalty on a person if they are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person's conduct constitutes a relevant housing offense in England. The relevant offenses include failure to comply with improvement notices, licensing of HMOs, management regulations for HMOs, and others. Only one financial penalty can be imposed for the same conduct, and the maximum penalty is £40,000. The authority cannot impose a penalty if the person has already been convicted of the offense or if criminal proceedings for the offense are still pending.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Financial Penalty Notice was deemed invalid due to incorrect timeframes for payment and appeals.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a Financial Penalty Notice was invalid because it did not comply with the required timeframes for payment and appeals as stipulated by the Housing Act 2004. Judge Amran Vance presided over the case.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : AB/LON/00AZ/HNA/2019/0077 Property : 183a [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] Type of [NAME] : Appeal against a financial penalty – Section 249A & Schedule 13A to the Housing Act 2004 Tribunal : Judge Amran Vance Date of decision : 19 December 2019

DECISION

Decision

1. This appeal is allowed on the ground that the Financial Penalty Notice dated 23 May 2019 said to be made under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) was invalid;

2. I order that the [NAME] fee paid by the applicant in the sum of £100, must be paid by the council to Mr [NAME] within 28 days after the date of this decision.

3. I extend time for the applicant to pursue this appeal under, r.6(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 (“the 2013 Rules”) and accept it as as a valid appeal.

2

Reasons for decision

4. In a letter sent by the tribunal to the parties, at my request, dated 20 August 2019, I notified the parties that this appeal would be listed for a preliminary hearing on 23 September 2019 to determine two issues, namely:

(a) whether the applicant’s appeal was received in time, and if not, whether the tribunal should extend time; and

(b) whether this appeal should be allowed on the ground that the Financial Penalty Notice dated 23 May 2019 was invalid and, if so, whether the [NAME] fee paid by the applicant should be refunded

5. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 13A of the 2004 Act provides that “The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given”. The authority has used a standard form decision. On the fourth page of the Notice it is stated that “You have until insert date-28 days from the date of service of Notice. If service by post add 3 days to pay this Civil Penalty.” The fifth page of the notice purports to notify the [NAME] of appeal rights, and states “You have 28 days to appeal-that is, by 28 days from service of notice. If serving by post use 31 days.” 6. In the letter of 20 August 2019, I indicated that my preliminary view was that: (a) the notice is invalid as the final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given, and not from date of service; and (b) the notice is invalid as it gives an ambiguous notification as to the time limit for an appeal to this tribunal.

7. By letter to the tribunal dated 16 September 2019, the council confirmed that it accepts that no valid Final Notice had been served on the appellant, and that it did not contest the appeal.

8. In light of those concessions, I confirm my preliminary view, and make the decision recorded above. I retrospectively extend time for the applicant to lodge his appeal under rule 6(3)(a) of the 2013 Rules, to 9 July 2019, the date of receipt by the tribunal.

9.

In all the circumstances, it is just for the council to pay to the appellant the fee he paid to issue this [NAME]. Name: [NAME]: 19 December 2019

3

APPENDIX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

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

2. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

3. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 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 Financial Penalty Notice was invalid because it did not require payment within 28 days from the day after the notice was given.
  • The Financial Penalty Notice was invalid because it provided ambiguous information about the timeframe for appealing to the tribunal.
  • The council accepted that a valid Final Notice had not been served on the appellant.
  • The tribunal extended the time for the applicant to pursue the appeal.
  • The council was ordered to refund the fee paid by the applicant for issuing the appeal.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Financial Penalty Notice was declared invalid due to incorrect timeframes for payment and appeals.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and the local council.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the notice was invalid because it did not follow the correct timeframes specified in the Housing Act 2004.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 2004, specifically sections related to financial penalties and appeals.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the incorrect calculation of the timeframes for payment and appeals.

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

The decision was in favour of the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any Financial Penalty Notices they receive comply with the correct timeframes for payment and appeals.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The standard form decision and the Housing Act 2004 were key pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal matters.

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.