Tribunal Grants Banning Order Against Company and Director for Non-compliance with Improvement Notices

OUTCOME: Allowed

© [NAME] ([NAME]) Case reference : LON/00BB/HBA/2025/0003 Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] [COUNSEL] of counsel Representative : [NAME] [COUNSEL] of application : Application for a banning order under section 15(1) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 Tribunal members : Judge [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 26 November 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal makes a Banning Order against the Respondents, for a period of five years, in the terms set out in the Order that accompanies this decision.

The application

1. This is an application brought by London Borough of [NAME] (‘[NAME]’) seeking a Banning Order under section 15 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”). The Order is sought to ban [COMPANY] (London) [COMPANY] ([COMPANY]) and [NAME] [NAME], a director of [COMPANY] ([NAME]) from letting housing in England, from engaging in English letting agency work, engaging in [NAME] management work or doing two or more of those things. [NAME] also seeks a provision in the Banning Order that [NAME] [NAME] is [NAME] from being involved in any [NAME] under section 18(1) of the 2016 Act. It is proposed that the ban take effect six months after the date of the Banning Order and will last for a period of five years. [NAME] provided a draft of the Banning Order which they sought.

2. The application is dated 10 July 2025. Directions were issued on 17 July 2025, amended on 19 August 2025, setting out the timetable for the parties to prepare for the Hearing which was subsequently fixed for 21 November 2025.

2

Statutory Provisions and Guidance

3. The statutory provisions relating to Banning Orders are contained within Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the 2016 Act and, to the extent relevant, are set out in Appendix 1 to this decision.

4. In summary, a local housing authority (LHA), in this case [NAME], may apply to this Tribunal for a Banning Order against a person who has been convicted of a Banning Order offence and who was a residential landlord or a [NAME] agent at the time the offence was committed.

5. Section 14 of the 2016 Act provides that a Banning Order means an order banning a person from: (a) letting housing in England; (b) engaging in English letting agency work; (c) engaging in [NAME] management work; or (d) doing two or more of those things.

6. Section 15 requires the LHA to give the person a notice of intended proceedings before applying for a Banning Order: (a) informing the person that the authority is proposing to apply for a Banning Order and explaining why; (b) stating the length of each proposed ban; and (c) inviting the person to make representations within a period specified in the notice of not less than 28 days.

7. The LHA must consider any representations made during that notice period and must wait until the notice period has ended before applying for a Banning Order. Notice of intended proceedings may not be given after the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the person was convicted of the offence to which the notice relates.

8. Section 16 provides that in deciding whether to make a Banning Order against a person, and in deciding what order to make, the Tribunal must consider:

(a) the seriousness of the offence of which the person has been convicted; (b) any previous convictions that the person has for a Banning Order offence; (c) whether the person is or has at any time been included in the database of [NAME]; and (d) the likely effect of the Banning Order on the person and anyone else who may be affected by the order.

9. Section 17 provides that a ban must last at least 12 months but may contain exceptions to the ban for some or all of the period to which the ban relates. The exceptions may also be subject to conditions. In addition, a person who is subject to a Banning Order that includes a ban on letting may not make an unauthorised transfer of an estate in land to a [NAME]. Nor can a [NAME] hold an HMO licence or a licence under Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 in respect of a house. In addition, an HMO licence or Part 3 licence

3 must be revoked if a Banning Order is made against the licence holder. Interim and final management orders may be made in cases where a Banning Order has been made and a [NAME] has been let in breach of the Banning Order.

10. Section 14(3) defines a “Banning Order offence” as an offence of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. The relevant regulations are the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Banning Order Offences) Regulations 2018 (“the 2018 Regulations”) which sets out the Banning Order offences in the Schedule to the Regulations. The 2018 Regulations only apply to offences committed after the coming into force of the regulations, on 6th April 2018.

11. For the purposes of this application, offences in relation to a failure to comply with an improvement notice under section 30(1) of the Housing Act 2004 are Banning Order offences, unless the sentence imposed on the person convicted of the offence is an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge.

12. The Tribunal has also had regard to the guidance from MHCLG entitled Banning Order Offences under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 - Guidance for Local Housing Authorities, published in 2018 (‘MHCLG Guidance’).

The hearing

13. The Applicant appeared and was represented by [NAME] [COUNSEL] of counsel at the hearing and [NAME] appeared in person. The Tribunal had before it a Bundle from the Applicant of 555 pages. The Respondent had not provided a Bundle. [NAME] [APPELLANT] had not brought a copy of the Applicant’s Bundle with him. At the [NAME] [APPELLANT] was provided with a hard copy of the Bundle by the Applicant.

14. The Tribunal heard evidence from Ms [APPELLANT], an Environmental Health Officer and Team Leader in [NAME]

The issues

15. The issues for the Tribunal to consider include: (a) whether the LHA has given the Respondents a notice of intended proceedings in compliance with section 15 of the 2016 Act, and whether it has otherwise complied with the procedural requirements of that section. (b) whether the respondents have been convicted of a banning order offence. (c) whether, at the time the offence was committed, the respondents were a ‘residential landlord’ or a ‘[NAME] agent’ (see the definitions in section 56 of the 2016 Act). (d) Whether to make a banning order (and, if so, what order to make) having regard to: • the seriousness of the offence of which the respondents have been convicted; • any previous convictions that the respondents have for a banning order offence;

4 • whether the respondents are, or have at any time been included in the database of [NAME] (pursuant to section 30 of the 2016 Act); and • the likely effect of the banning order on the respondents and anyone else who may be affected by the order.

Applicant’s case

16. The application by [APPELLANT] has been triggered by the conviction of [COMPANY] and [NAME] [NAME] at Thames Magistrates Court on 30 April 2024 of the following offences

Failing to comply with five different Improvement Notices under sections 30(1) and 30(3) of the Housing Act 2004 for the following premises

• Common parts of 1 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘[ADDRESS]’) • [ADDRESS] • [ADDRESS] • [ADDRESS] • [ADDRESS]

17. The Improvement Notices had been served on [COMPANY] between June and August 2023, requiring work to be completed within 28 days from the operable date. The Improvement Notices had not been complied with and to date the works remain outstanding.

18. [COMPANY] was fined a total of £27,000 and [NAME] [NAME] a total of £11,500.

19. The hazards identified and included within the Improvement Notices related to a Category 1 hazard for Falling between Levels in Flat 6, and a significant number of high category 2 hazards in the communal area and Flats 1, 5, 6 and 10. Ms [NAME] told the Tribunal that the tenants were vulnerable and a number of families with children live at [ADDRESS].

20. [NAME] gave evidence that before deciding to apply for Banning Orders she had consulted with her manager, [RESPONDENT], considered the legislation, searched the Rogue Landlord database, considered the MHCLG Guidance and ensured that it was in compliance with the Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy. Ms [NAME] stated that she had also completed a proportionality assessment by the four-stage process outlined by Lord [NAME] in [COMPANY] v Akerman-Livingstone [2015] UKSC 15.

21. Notices of Intent (the Notices), as required by section 15 of the 2016 Act, were given to [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] on 23 October 2024. The Notices were sent to both Respondents at the registered office for [COMPANY]. The Notice addressed to [NAME] [NAME] was also sent to him at [ADDRESS] Essex, an address Ms [NAME] had obtained for [NAME] [NAME] through a search of the National Anti-Fraud Network website.

5

22. The Notices sought to prevent the Respondents respectively from letting housing in England, engaging in English letting agency work, engaging in [NAME] management work or doing two or more of those things. The Notices set out the reasons for the application and stated that the length of each of the Banning Order being applied for was five years. The Notices included provisions for the Respondents to make representations in respect of the Notices within a period a period of 28 days from the date of the Notices.

23. Representations were received by e mail from [EMAIL] on 19 November 2024. On 20 November 2024 Ms [NAME] spoke to [NAME] [NAME] after which she received an e mail from him on the same day requesting an extension of time within which to find a legal representative and to make representations. [COUNSEL] agreed to extend the period during which [NAME] [NAME] might make representations to 6 December 2024. Receiving a further email from [EMAIL] on 27 November Ms [NAME] questioned the capacity of the sender to make representations on the part of [COMPANY] and informing the sender that [NAME] [NAME], as director of the company had asked for time to make representations.

24. On 6 December 2024 [NAME] received an e mail from Metrolaw, as solicitors to [NAME] [NAME] requesting that a banning order should not be made against [NAME] [NAME], as he is not an active director of [COMPANY].

25. On 12 December Ms [NAME] discussed the matter with her manager, [NAME]. As neither [COMPANY] not [NAME] [NAME] had requested the court to re open the cases nor appeal the convictions it was decided that [NAME] would pursue the Banning Orders against the Respondents.

26. In making this decision Ms [NAME] gave evidence that [NAME] had taken into account the factors set out in s16 of the 2016 Act.

27. [RESPONDENT] considers it serious that each Respondent was found guilty of committing five different banning order offences in the magistrates’ court, [COMPANY] being fined a total of £27,000 and [NAME] [NAME] a total of £11,500, both being substantial sums. The magistrates did not consider it appropriate to levy lower fines or give a conditional discharge.

28. On 12 March 2025 [NAME] indicated to both Respondents that it had considered the representations but had decided to apply for Banning Orders. The application to the Tribunal was made 12 March 2025.

29. Ms [NAME] gave evidence that she had carried out a search of the [NAME]) on 6 August 2025. This showed that [COMPANY] had received

6 • Seven separate civil (financial) penalty notices on 3 December 2018 under Housing and Planning Act 2016 for £5000 each in respect of flats 1,4,6,7,8,9,and 10 [ADDRESS]. • A criminal conviction on 19 June 2021 for failing to comply with an Abatement Notice under s80(4) Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to [ADDRESS]. • The criminal convictions for five different offences under s30 Housing Act 2004 of 30 April 2024 the basis of [NAME] making these applications.

30. Ms [RESPONDENT] search of the [NAME]) in relation to [NAME] [RESPONDENT] showed the convictions for the five different offences under s30 Housing Act 2004 of 30 April 2024.

31. Ms [NAME] had checked [NAME]’s case records and found that the following had been issued against [COMPANY]; a civil penalty notice for £1000 issued on 12 September 2018 in respect of [ADDRESS], and seven civil penalty notices issued on 3 December 2018 of £5000 each in respect of Flats 1,4,6,7,8,9,and 10 [ADDRESS]. As at 9 September 2024 none of these penalties had been paid.

32. On behalf of [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] made the following submissions as to the basis upon which it was seeking an unconditional Banning Order for each of the Respondents for a period of five years.

33. The convictions of 30 April 2024 were not spent at the time [NAME] served Notice of Intent. [NAME] [NAME] was asked by the Tribunal to address that the original application to the Tribunal, made on 12 March 2025 had subsequently been amended on 10 July 2025. The application of 12 March 2025 had named [NAME] [RESPONDENT] as the Respondent and [RESPONDENT] as the officer convicted of the offence. The corrected application, dated 10 July 2025, named [RESPONDENT] as the Respondent and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] as the officer. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] submitted that the March application named both Respondents, but in the wrong order. As both were named there was no prejudice suffered when this was corrected in July. The application could have proceeded on the basis of the March application with [NAME] [RESPONDENT] as the Respondent.

34. [RESPONDENT] had given both Respondents notice of intended proceedings as required by s15(3), and had considered the representations that they made during the notice period. The Companies Act contains no concept of a ‘caretaker’ director. The fact that the magistrates fined [NAME] [NAME] as well as [COMPANY] indicates that at the least they must have found him to be neglectful.

35. [NAME] [NAME] submitted that a Banning Order for a period of five years was proportionate.

7

36. At the hearing the Tribunal raised with [NAME] whether the Banning Order might make an exception where the Respondents might be permitted to let housing in England if they used independent agents first approved by [NAME].

37. [NAME] [NAME] submitted that [COMPANY] should consider selling [ADDRESS] or leasing it on a long lease to give the tenants of [ADDRESS] a respite from the poor management exercised by [COMPANY]. [COMPANY] had a history of poor management over the past five years, evidenced by the financial penalties awarded against it, and which it had not paid. Being unable to own or manage [NAME] for five years would either remove [COMPANY] from the sector or encourage it to improve. [NAME] [NAME] should be subject to a similar prohibition. It may be his first offence but he had displayed a dereliction of duty.

38. The purpose of Improvement Notices is to remediate hazards found under the Housing Act 20024, Housing, Health and Safety Rating System are removed or significantly reduced so that tenants can live in a safe and healthy home. [NAME] submitted that failure to comply with the Improvement Notices can cause direct harm to the tenants and affect their health and safety when living in the [NAME].

39. [COMPANY] have failed to comply with the Improvement Notices and have not paid the finalties penalties awarded against them. They continue to offend.

40. A banning order would prevent [COMPANY], and [NAME] [NAME], from committing any further offences that might harm the tenants. If they are granted they will be published to act as a deterrent to other rogue landlords.

[NAME] [NAME] case

41. [NAME] [NAME] had become a director on 12 August 2021, and had considered himself to be a ‘caretaker’ director.

42. [NAME] [NAME] submitted that until he had received [NAME]’s Notice of Intention he had been unaware of the proceedings in the magistrates court. He did not have access to the registered office of [COMPANY] or its bank account.

The Tribunal’s decision

43. The Tribunal makes Banning Orders against both Respondents for a period of five years in the terms set out in the order that accompanies this decision.

Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision

8 44. The Tribunal has made its determination having heard evidence from Ms [NAME], and submissions from the parties and considered all of the documents provided.

45. The Tribunal finds that the application of 10 July 2025 did no more than correct an error in the application of 12 March 2025, without prejudice to either Respondent, so that it may treat the application as having been made on 12 March 2025, at which time the offences were not spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

46. The Tribunal finds on the evidence before it that both Respondents had been convicted of Banning Offences. Failure to comply with an Improvement Notice is a Banning Offence for the purposes of the 2016 Act.

47. The Land Registry entries in the bundle before the Tribunal confirm that [COMPANY], as the registered freehold proprietor of [ADDRESS], is a residential landlord and was at the time the offence was committed.

48. [NAME] [NAME] is stated in the Companies House search of 15 a2025, included in the bundle, to be an active Director of [COMPANY].

49. The Tribunal has discretion as to whether or not to make a Banning Order, and when deciding whether to make a Banning Order and what Banning Order to make the Tribunal must consider the seriousness of the offence of which the person is convicted, whether the person has any previous convictions for a Banning Offence, whether the person is or has been on the database of [NAME] and the likely effect on the person and anyone else who may be affected by the order.

50. The Tribunal finds that the fact that both Respondents received significant fines in the magistrates court points to the seriousness of the offences.

51. Improvement Notices are a vital tool to ensure that the housing conditions of occupiers are of a sufficient standard. Improvement Notices set out clearly what works are to be done and the period of time for the works to completed. By setting out these matters, it helps to focus the attention of a landlord to complete the works in a timely manner and to minimise the discomfort of occupiers. The hazards identified in the Improvement Notices included category 1 hazards, the most serious of hazards, that could result in the most serious harm to occupiers. Other of the identified hazards were the most serious of category 2 hazards.

52. The Tribunal therefore finds that it is appropriate to make a Banning Order.

53. As to the length of the order the Tribunal notes that the minimum period is 12 months but there is no upper limit. There may be circumstances when the relevant behaviour is so extreme that it would merit a significantly long or permanent ban on the activities. In this case [NAME] has proposed a ban for

9 five years. The proposal of five years needs to be measured against the scale of a minimum period of 12 months and a lifetime ban. It also needs to be measured against the length of time during which the Respondents have not paid the financial penaltiesand have not complied with the Improvement Notices. In this case we consider the issues are serious and warrant a Banning Order for a period of five years. This period is sufficient to ensure that the Banning Order will have the appropriate punitive effect on the Respondents and a real deterrent effect on them and other landlords.

54. Neither Respondent has previous convictions for Banning Offences but both are on the database for rogue landlords.

55. [COMPANY] had ignored and not paid the financial penalties imposed on it in 2018 and has not complied with the Improvement Notices. The Tribunal finds that unless there is a change in how [ADDRESS] is managed there is likely to be harm to the tenants, both currently and in the future. Specifically, the Tribunal finds that failure to comply with the Improvement Notices can cause direct harm to the tenants and affect their health and safety when living in the [NAME].

56. The Tribunal must have regard to the likely effect of the banning order on the anyone other than the Respondents who may be affected by the order. [ADDRESS] is tenanted. It is understood that there are ten tenanted flats occupied by vulnerable tenants and tenants with children.

57. An unconditional Banning Order is likely to affect the tenants, in that they may find their tenancies terminated or they may find themselves subject to a new landlord. The Tribunal finds that it would be reasonable to make an exception to the Banning Order to ensure that the current tenants may remain in their homes. It finds that the tenants may be as well protected if an independent managing agent be appointed to manage the [NAME]. The Tribunal has therefore added an exception to the draft Banning Order provided by [NAME].

58. The Tribunal makes a Banning Order for five years from the date set out in the Order. The Banning Order is attached and will take effect three months from the date of this Decision. By adding the exception to the Banning Order it is not necessary for the tenants to vacate [ADDRESS], but the Respondents will have sufficient time to find an approved managing agent to take over management responsibilities.

Name: Judge Pittaway

Date: 26 November 2025

10 Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] 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 [NAME] 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).

11 APPENDIX 1 Statutory Provisions

Housing and Planning Act 2016

Chapter 2 – Banning Orders

Banning Orders: key definitions

14. “Banning Order” and “Banning Order offence” (1) In this Part “Banning Order” means an order, made by the First-tier Tribunal, banning a person from- (a) letting housing in England, (b) engaging in English letting agency work, (c) engaging in [NAME] management work, or (d) doing two or more of those things. (2) …………………. (3) In this Part “Banning Order offence” means an offence of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Imposition of Banning Orders

15. Application and notice of intended proceedings (1) A local housing authority in England may apply for a Banning Order against a person who has been convicted of a Banning Order offence. (2) ………………. (3) Before applying for a Banning Order under subsection (1), the authority must give the person a notice of intended proceedings- (a) informing the person that the authority is proposing to apply for a Banning Order and explaining why, (b) stating the length of each proposed ban, and (c) inviting the person to make representations within a period specified in the notice of not less than 28 days (“the notice period”). (4) The authority must consider any representations made during the notice period. (5) The authority must wait until the notice period has ended before applying for a Banning Order. (6) A notice of intended proceedings may not be given after the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the person was convicted of the offence to which the notice relates.

16. Making a Banning Order

(1) The First-tier Tribunal may make a Banning Order against a person who- (a) has been convicted of a Banning Order offence, and (b) was a residential landlord or a [NAME] agent at the time the offence was committed (but see subsection (3)).

(2) A Banning Order may only be made on an application by a local housing authority in England that has complied with section 15.

12 (3) …………………… (4) In deciding whether to make a Banning Order against a person, and in deciding what order to make, the Tribunal must consider- (a) the seriousness of the offence of which the person has been convicted, (b) any previous convictions that the person has for a Banning Order offence, (c) whether the person is or has at any time been included in the database of [NAME], and (d) the likely effect of the Banning Order on the person and anyone else who may be affected by the order.

17. Duration and effect of Banning Order

(1) A Banning Order must specify the length of each ban imposed by the order. (2) A ban must last at least 12 months. (3) A Banning Order may contain exceptions to a ban for some or all of the period to which the ban relates and the exceptions may be subject to conditions. (4) A Banning Order may, for example, contain exceptions- (a) to deal with cases where there are existing tenancies and the landlord does not have the power to bring them to an immediate end, or (b) to allow letting agents to wind down current business.

18 Content of banning order: involvement in bodies corporate

(c) (1) A banning order may include provision banning the person against whom it is made from being involved in any [NAME] that carries out an activity that the person is [NAME] by the order from carrying out. (d) (2) For this purpose a person is “involved” in a [NAME] if the person acts as an officer of the [NAME] or directly or indirectly takes part in or is concerned in the management of the [NAME].

First-tier Tribunal ([NAME] Chamber) [NAME] No: LON/00BB/HBA/2025/0003

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondents: [redacted] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] _____________________________________________________

BANNING ORDER

HOUSING AND PLANNING ACT 2016 – Section 16 _____________________________________________________

By this Order, [COMPANY] ([COMPANY]) of 604 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] and [NAME] of 604 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] and of 25 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

ARE [NAME] from: 1) Letting housing in England; 2) Engaging in English letting agency work; 3) Engaging in [NAME] management work; or 4) Doing two or more of those things.

[NAME] [NAME] [NAME] is [NAME] from being involved in any [NAME] that carries out any of the above activities. He may not act as an officer of such a [NAME] or directly or indirectly take part in, or be concerned in, its management.

These bans take effect three months from the date of this Banning Order, namely they will last for a period of FIVE YEARS from 26 FEBRUARY 2026.

The ban on letting houses in England is subject to an exception:

[COMPANY] (London) [COMPANY] and [NAME] [NAME] are [NAME] from letting housing in England except by – and only by – engaging the services of a Propertymark, SafeAgent and/or UK Association of Letting Agents (UKALA) accredited letting agent (a) with whom neither [COMPANY] ([COMPANY] nor [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] nor any company with which [NAME] [NAME] is concerned are either involved or associated and (b) whose engagement is first approved by the Council in writing, prior to engagement or to [COMPANY] (London) [COMPANY] or [NAME] [NAME] entering into any contract concerning their engagement.

NOTES IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONTENT OF THIS NOTICE YOU ARE ADVISED TO SEEK YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE. THESE NOTES ARE FOR GUIDANCE ONLY.

1. A person who breaches a banning order commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 51 weeks or to a fine or to both. Alternatively, a local housing authority may impose a financial penalty of up to £30,000 on a person whose conduct amounts to that offence.

2. A person who is subject to a banning order that includes a ban on letting may not make an unauthorised transfer of an estate in land to a [NAME]. Any such transfer is void (see section 27 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016)

3. A breach of a banning order does not affect the validity or enforceability of any provision of a tenancy or other contract.

4. A person against whom a banning order is made may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 20 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 revoking or varying the order.

5. The expressions “English letting agency work” and “[NAME] management work” have the meanings given to them by sections 54 and 55 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016respectively.

6. The reasons for making this banning order are set out in a decision issued separately by the Tribunal.