VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord's Penalty Reduced After Appealing Failure to Obtain License

Case No.

📌 In brief

A landlord who failed to get a license for renting a property in a selective licensing area successfully appealed the penalty. The Tribunal adjusted the penalty based on the level of culpability and harm.

⚖️ Legal holding

A local housing authority must assess the level of culpability and harm when determining a civil penalty for failing to obtain a license in a selective licensing area.

Topics

selective licensing areascivil penalties

Provisions

Housing Act 2004 s.249(a)Housing Act 2004 Schedule 13A

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 2004 s.249

This rule explains how a certificate attached to a copy of a designation made by a local housing authority can serve as evidence. The certificate, signed by the proper officer of the authority, confirms that the designation was made by the authority, that the copy is accurate, and whether the designation required confirmation by another authority or was confirmed on a specific date.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal reduced the penalty for failing to obtain a license in a selective licensing area.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on a landlord who failed to obtain a license in a selective licensing area, reassessing the culpability and harm levels.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00CF/HNA/2019/0062

Property : 17 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent : [redacted]

Type of Application : Appeal against penalty: s249(a) Housing Act 2004

Tribunal Members : [NAME]

A [NAME], MRICS

Date of Decision : 24 April 2020

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

2

DECISION

The Respondent’s Final Notice to the Applicant dated 12 June 2019 is varied by substituting the sum of £3854.70 for the penalty charge of £5254.70.

REASONS

THE FACTS

1. The Applicant lives in rented accommodation in Luton, and owns [ADDRESS], Clifton, Rotherham (“the Property”). The Applicant does not own other properties.

2. With effect from 1 May 2015 the Respondent Council designated as a Selective Licensing Area part of central Rotherham, which included the Property. Landlords of private housing within a Selective Licensing Area are required to apply for a licence, which is issued subject to compliance with conditions designed to ensure the health and safety of tenants.

3. The Applicant bought the Property in November 2017 at a price of £42,000, having borrowed much of that sum from family members. He let it from 8 February 2018. On a number of occasions beginning on 23 January 2018 the Respondent contacted the Applicant to advise him of the need to obtain a licence if the Property was to be let. No application for a licence was received. The Applicant failed to attend for interview.

4. A Civil Penalty Assessment was originally made by the Respondent on 18 September 2018 and signed off by the responsible officer on 24 January 2019. The culpability level was then assessed at “very high”, and the harm level was assessed at “medium”. This resulted in a penalty, according to the Respondent’s published policy, of £6250.

5. The Respondent eventually applied for a licence on 5 March 2019, following service on him of a Notice of Intention to apply a financial penalty of £6250 and £254.70 costs. A licence was issued on 24 April 2019.

6. On reviewing the penalty in the light of representations received, a discount of £20% was applied by the Respondent, resulting in a penalty of £5254.70 including costs. A final notice was issued on 12 June 2019. On 24 June 2019 the Applicant appealed to the Tribunal for a re-determination of the penalty.

THE STATUTORY POWERS

7. The Respondent’s powers are contained in Schedule 13A to the Housing Act 2004. Letting a property situated within a Selective Licensing area without a licence is an offence. The Respondent must issue a Notice of Intent before the end of 6 months beginning on the date when the Respondent has evidence that an offence has been committed, or at any time when the offence is continuing. The Notice of Intent sets out the Respondent’s intended penalty, and in this case the figure proposed by the Respondent was £7000.

8. The landlord on whom a Notice of Intent is served may make representations within 28 days, and the Respondent must then decide whether to impose a financial penalty, and if so, decide on the amount.

3

9. A local housing authority has some discretion as to how to calculate financial penalties, but must consider whether the landlord’s culpability is “high”, “medium” of “low” and whether the harm (as defined) caused by the failure to obtain a licence is “high”, “medium” or “low”. A chart published by the housing authority sets out the resulting figures for the highest and lowest penalties appropriate to the level of blame and harm.

10. On receipt of a landlord’s representations, the amount of penalty indicated in the Notice of Intent may be varied as seems appropriate to the housing authority. If he is dissatisfied, the landlord may apply to this tribunal for a review. The Tribunal may consider all the facts, including any facts not known to the Respondent when the penalty was assessed. The housing authority’s Final Notice may be confirmed, varied, or cancelled by the Tribunal

THE DECISION

11. The offence is admitted by the Applicant.

12. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent correctly assessed the Applicant’s culpability as “very high”, since he was fully aware of the requirement for a licence and failed to apply for one (or to make an effective application) until after he had notice of the intended penalty.

13. The Tribunal reassesses the level of harm at “low”. In its initial assessment, the Respondent noted that council officers had not had an opportunity at that time to view the condition of the Property. Since it was possible that there were hazards and delapidations, there was a potential for harm to tenants as well as harm in terms of public policy. In the event, the Property was found to be in good condition and the Applicant was granted a 5 year licence. On this basis, the level of harm has been reduced to “low”, in line with the categories published at page 14 of the Respondent’s Policy for the Use of Civil Penalty.

14. This reduces the penalty to £4500. The Respondent applied a 20% reduction to the initial assessment after taking into account the Applicant’s means and his cooperation in applying for a licence in March 2019. The same reduction is applied to the new assessment, resulting in a penalty of £3600. In addition, the Respondent’s costs of £254.70 are payable.

Judge A M Davies 24 April 2020

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 10 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 landlord's culpability was very high because he knew about the license requirement but failed to apply until after receiving notice of the penalty.
  • The penalty was reduced by 20% due to the landlord's cooperation in applying for a licence and his financial situation.
  • The Respondent's costs of £254.70 were added to the penalty.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The initial assessment of harm as "medium" was rejected because it was based on potential hazards rather than the actual condition of the property.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to reduce the penalty imposed on a landlord who failed to obtain a license in a selective licensing area.

Who was involved?

The case involved a landlord and a local housing authority.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to reduce the penalty because they reassessed the level of culpability and harm.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 2004 and its regulations were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the reassessment of the level of culpability and harm.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also have their penalty reduced if they can show a lower level of culpability and harm.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing the landlord's awareness and cooperation in obtaining a license mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions like this can be appealed to higher courts.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.