First-tier Tribunal Reverses Licence Revocation Due to Administrative Error
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal reversed the revocation of a licence because of an administrative mistake made by the local council. This highlights the importance of correct procedures in housing management decisions.
⚖️ Legal holding
An administrative error invalidates the revocation of a licence granted under the Housing Act 2004.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal reversed the revocation of a licence due to an administrative error.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal reversed the revocation of a licence granted under the Housing Act 2004 due to an administrative error made by the Respondent. The decision was made by Deputy Regional Judge Nigel Gravells on 9 February 2022.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Reference : BIR/00FY/HSL/2021/0001
Subject Property : 69 [ADDRESS]
[POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent
: [redacted]
Type of Application : Application under paragraph 32(1) of
Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 2004 to
appeal against the revocation of a licence
granted under Part 3 of the Housing Act
2004 in respect of the subject property
Tribunal Member : Deputy Regional Judge Nigel Gravells
Date of Decision : 9 February 2022
_____________________________________
DECISION _________________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
(1) This is a decision on an application under paragraph 32(1) of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 2004 (‘the 2004 Act’) by which the Applicant appeals against the revocation of a licence granted by the Respondent Council in respect of the subject property. (2) The licence was granted by the Respondent under Part 3 of the 2004 Act on 30 November 2020. The named licence holder was [NAME] (UK) [APPELLANT] (‘[NAME]’), who had been appointed by the Applicant to manage the subject property. (3) When the Applicant subsequently dispensed with the services of [NAME], [NAME] no longer wished to be the licence holder and they requested the Respondent to revoke the licence. (4) On 9 November 2021 the Respondent purported to revoke the licence. (5) By application received by the Tribunal on 1 December 2021 the Applicant appealed against the Respondent’s decision to revoke the licence. (6) It subsequently emerged that there had been an administrative error on behalf of the Respondent. On 20 January 2022 the Respondent wrote to the Applicant – (i) stating that in the circumstances it treated the revocation of 9 November 2021 as ineffective and (ii) issuing a new decision revoking the licence effective from 20 January 2022. (7) On 21 January 2022 the Tribunal emailed both parties, indicating – (i) that the Tribunal was minded, pursuant to paragraph 34(3) of Schedule 5 to the 2004 Act, formally to reverse the Respondent’s revocation decision of 9 November 2021; (ii) that the Tribunal was minded, pursuant to rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ( [NAME]) Rules 2013, to direct the Respondent to reimburse to the Applicant the application fee of £100.00 paid by the Applicant in respect of his application to the Tribunal; (iii) that, if the Applicant wished to appeal against the new revocation decision of 20 January 2022, he must submit a new application within the 28-day time limit. (8) The Tribunal directed that any objection to the proposed action set out in paragraphs (7)(i) and (7)(ii) above must be received by the Tribunal not later than 7 February 2022. (9) The Tribunal has received no such objections.
(10) In the circumstances the Tribunal – (i) pursuant to paragraph 34(3) of Schedule 5 to the 2004 Act, reverses the Respondent’s revocation decision of 9 November 2021; (ii) pursuant to rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013, directs the Respondent to reimburse to the Applicant the application fee of £100.00 paid by the Applicant in respect of his application to the Tribunal;
9 February 2022
Professor Nigel P Gravells Deputy Regional Judge
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Varies HMO Licence Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Financial Penalty Appeal Successful - Tribunal Cancels Penalty
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Modifies Selective Licensing Condition for Reasonablene…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Financial Penalty for Unlicensed Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Varies Improvement Notice for Tenant's Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Quashes Prohibition Orders and Improvement Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rules Council Unreasonable for Not Revoking Improvement Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Financial Penalties for Failing to License Properties
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Repayment Order for Unlicensed Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Varies Improvement Notice for Damp and Mould Issues
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Financial Penalty Reduced for Unlicensed Property in Selectively Licensed A…
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 council's initial revocation of the licence was invalid due to an administrative error.
- The council itself acknowledged the error and treated the first revocation as ineffective.
- The Tribunal reversed the council's original revocation decision.
- The council was ordered to refund the applicant's £100 application fee.
- Neither party objected to the Tribunal's proposed actions regarding the reversal and fee reimbursement.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided to reverse the revocation of a licence due to an administrative error.
Who was involved?
The claimant and the local council were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to reverse the revocation because of an administrative error made by the council.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 2004 and the Tribunal Procedure Rules were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the revocation was due to an administrative error.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that all administrative processes are followed correctly to avoid such issues.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence of the administrative error was crucial in making the decision.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to a higher court.
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 licences and administrative errors.
