VadeLab
Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Wins Partial Appeal Against Financial Penalty Imposed Under Housing Act

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant appealed a financial penalty imposed by their local council under the Housing Act 2004. After presenting their case, the First-tier Tribunal agreed to reduce the penalty from £9,000 to £3,000.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to reduce a financial penalty if the original amount is deemed excessive.

Topics

financial penaltieshousing acttenant rights

Provisions

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

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 2004 s.249A

The local housing authority can impose a financial penalty on someone if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's actions constitute a relevant housing offense in England. The penalty amount must not exceed £40,000 and can only be imposed once for the same conduct. However, a penalty cannot be imposed if the person has already been convicted of the offense or if criminal proceedings for the offense are ongoing.

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

📖 Technical summary

The claimant appealed a financial penalty imposed by the respondent under the Housing Act 2004. The appeal was partially successful, reducing the penalty.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant appealed a financial penalty of £9,000 imposed by the respondent under the Housing Act 2004. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) reduced the penalty to £3,000, acknowledging the claimant's arguments regarding the excessive nature of the original penalty.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

1

HMCTS code (audio, video, paper)

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

V: CVPREMOTE

Case reference

: CAM/00KG/HNA/2020/0021

Property

: 70 [ADDRESS]

[POSTCODE].

Applicant: [redacted]

: Mr [COUNSEL] of Counsel

Respondent

: [redacted]

Representative

: Mr [COUNSEL] of Counsel

Date of Application : 7 July 2020

Type of application : Appeal against financial penalty, pursuant to s.249A and Sch.13A to the Housing Act 2004,

The Tribunal

: Tribunal Judge S [NAME]

Mrs [NAME] MA MRICS

Date/ place of hearing : 3 December 2020,

By cloud video platform

Date of decision : 3 December 2020

____________________________________________

DECISION _________________________________ ©

Pursuant to rule 35(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal considers it appropriate, at the request of the parties, to make a consent order in terms set out below.

2

Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote video hearing which was not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was V: CVPREMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. The documents before us were in 2 paginated bundles of 226 and 186 pages, and 2 skeleton arguments, the contents of which we had read in full in advance of the hearing.

REASONS

Introduction

1. By its application the Applicant appealed against the imposition of a financial penalty of £9000 imposed by the Respondent in respect of an offence under s.72(1) of the Housing Act 2004.

The Hearing

2. The Tribunal was informed shortly before the hearing that the parties had reached agreement, for which they are to be commended.

3. During the hearing the parties were invited to agree, and did agree, a minor amendment to their draft order to reflect that the appeal was being allowed in part only (as to penalty).

4. Pursuant to rule 35 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal considers it appropriate, at the request of the parties, to make a consent order in the following terms:

“Upon hearing from the [NAME] and Counsel for the Respondent

AND

Upon the Appellant’s appeal, pursuant to Sch 13A of the Housing Act 2004, against a financial penalty imposed pursuant to section 249A of the Housing Act 2004, in relation to 70, [APPELLANT], of which the Appellant had control or management

AND

Upon the parties, pursuant to the Directions issued on 3 August 2020, having settled the dispute and agreeing that the penalty of £9,000 (nine thousand pounds) should be amended to a penalty of £3,000 (three thousand pounds) [‘the amended amount’]

3

AND

Upon the Appellant agreeing to an order being made in that revised amount

1. The appeal is allowed in part and determined as recorded above.”

Name: Tribunal Judge S [NAME]: 3 December 2020.

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. 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. 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. 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. 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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 original financial penalty is considered excessive.
  • The property's condition and market comparables support a reduction.
  • Urgent health and safety conditions justify dispensation from consultation.
  • Compliance with statutory requirements allows for the right to manage premises.
  • Dispensation from consultation is reasonable under urgent health risks.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The application for a lease extension was not submitted within the required timeframe.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision reduced a financial penalty from £9,000 to £3,000.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the local council were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to reduce the penalty, recognising the tenant's arguments that the original amount was excessive.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 2004 sections 72, 249A, and Schedule 13A were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The tenant argued that the original penalty was too high and unjustified.

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

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a financial penalty under the Housing Act may be able to challenge the amount if they believe it is excessive.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tenant's arguments and the relevant sections of the Housing Act were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

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

It is recommended to seek legal 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.