Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction on Licensing Appeal Before License Issued
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal (a person) decided it couldn't hear an appeal against proposed conditions of a selective licensing notice until a license was actually issued. The appeal was struck out.
⚖️ Legal holding
A local housing authority's decision to impose conditions on a selective licensing notice cannot be appealed until a license is actually issued.
📖 What the law says
A local housing authority can designate an area for selective licensing if two conditions are met: first, the area must be considered to have low housing demand or be likely to become such, and second, the designation must contribute to improving social or economic conditions in the area when combined with other measures.
A person commits an offense if they use premises in violation of a prohibition order or allow others to use the premises in violation of the same order, knowing that the order is in effect. Upon summary conviction, the offender is liable to pay a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale, plus an additional fine of up to £20 for each day or part of a day the violation continues after conviction. It is a defense if the person can show they had a reasonable excuse for the violation.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal against proposed conditions of a selective licensing notice before a license is issued.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal against proposed conditions of a selective licensing notice before a license was issued, striking out the appeal under Rule 9(2) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BA/HMV/2025/0003. Property : 43 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : In person. Respondent/Council : London Borough of Merton.
Representative
: [NAME] [COUNSEL] (Counsel) Type of application : Appeal against the refusal by the respondent local authority to vary a selective licence under Schedule 5 Paragraph 32(1) Housing Act 2004. Tribunal : Tribunal Judge N O’Brien Tribunal Member F [NAME] of Determination : 3 November 2025
DECISION
(1) The tribunal having no jurisdiction to hear this appeal, the appeal is struck out pursuant to Rule 9(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)([NAME]) Rules 2013. (2) The Respondent must reimburse the Appellant in respect of the hearing fee of £227 (3) The above sum must be paid within 28 days of today.
2
BACKGROUND 1. Mr [NAME] is the leasehold owner of the subject property which is located in an area which the Respondent has designated a selective licencing area pursuant to s.80 of the Housing Act 2004. This requires all privately let accommodation within that area to be licenced pursuant to the Respondent’s selective licencing scheme.
2. Mr [RESPONDENT] applied for a licence under the Respondent’s selective licencing scheme. On 27 January 2025 the Respondent sent the Applicant a notice of intention to grant him a licence which included a draft licence with a number of conditions attached. Mr [NAME] objected to a number of the proposed conditions, and on 31 January the Respondent indicated that the proposed conditions would not be revised as they accorded with the guidelines which had been adopted by the Respondent. On 31 January 2025 Mr [RESPONDENT] wrote to the Respondent indicating that he was dissatisfied with the council’s response and stated ‘I reserve my right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal ([NAME])’. On 3 February 2025 a Mr [RESPONDENT], team leader of the Respondent’s Licencing Team emailed Mr [RESPONDENT] confirming again that the Respondent would not alter any of the terms of the draft licence. He stated ‘should you wish to still escalate your concerns with the First- tier Tribunal, please inform us so that we can make of note of this on your respective case file and await the outcome’. To date the Respondent has not issued any licence.
3. On 10 February 2025 the tribunal received an appeal from Mr [NAME] brought pursuant to paragraph 32 of Part 3 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 2004 against the refusal by the Respondent to vary the conditions attached to the draft Selective Licence in respect of the subject property.
4. On 15 April 2025 the tribunal notified the Respondent of the appeal and sent the Respondent a copy of Mr [RESPONDENT] application. Directions were issued on 23 May 2025 and the matter was set down for a final hearing on 3 November 2025.
5. Pursuant to the directions the Respondent filed a statement of case dated 8 August 2025 in which it asserted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the appeal due to the fact that it had been issued prematurely and no licence had yet been issued. The Hearing 6. Mr [RESPONDENT] attended the hearing in person. The Respondent was represented by [NAME] [COUNSEL] of counsel.
7. At the start of the hearing we notified Mr [COUNSEL] that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] knew the Respondent’s witness, a [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME], because they had worked
3 together in the London Borough of Wandsworth in the 90’s. Mr [NAME] indicated that he had no objection to [NAME] sitting as a panel member.
8. At the start of the hearing we indicated that we would first consider the issue raised by the Respondent regarding the tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Legal Framework 9. Paragraph 31 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 2004 provides that an applicant or any relevant person may appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal against a decision by the local housing authority to either refuse to grant a licence or to grant the licence. Paragraph 32 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 2005 provides that a licence holder or any relevant person may apply to the FTT against the decision of the local authority to refuse to vary or vary a licence it has granted.
The Parties Submissions 10. Mr [RESPONDENT] considered that the fact that the Respondent had written to him to say that it would not consider varying the terms of the conditions it intended to impose on the licence meant that the decision to apply the conditions had already been taken and thus could be appealed under paragraph 32 of Schedule 5. He drew our attention to the fact that Mr [NAME] had informed him that he would await the outcome of this appeal before further processing his licence application and thus he could not appeal the conditions to be attached to a granted licence until this matter is resolved. [NAME] [NAME] argued that the application was premature. The licence has not been granted and so does not yet exist and furthermore Mr [NAME] is not yet a licence holder and so is not a person who can bring an appeal under para 32 of Schedule 5. She drew our attention to the fact that there is no provision for appeal to be brought against the content of a notice of intention to grant a licence which the Respondent was required to send to the Appellant by virtue of paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 5. Our Decision 11. We consider that the Respondent is correct and that this appeal has been brought prematurely. Appeals under Schedule 5 can only be brought in respect of a local housing authority’s decision to issue, or not issue, a licence or to apply conditions to a licence that it has granted. It is unfortunate that Mr [APPELLANT] did not inform the Appellant at a much earlier stage that any appeal brought against the proposed draft licence conditions would be premature and even more unfortunate that Mr [NAME] informed [NAME] that it would await the outcome of his appeal before processing his application notwithstanding the fact that he knew, or ought to have known that an appeal can only be brought to the First-
4 tier Tribunal in relation to conditions attached to a licence which has been issued.
12. It follows that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal and that it must be struck out pursuant to Rule 9(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)([NAME]) Rules 2013.
13. In his reply to the Respondent’s statement of case Mr [RESPONDENT] has made an application for the reimbursement of the fees he paid in respect of these proceedings, being the initial fee of £110 and the hearing fee of £227 which he paid on 5 July 2025.
14. We acknowledge that it would be unusual for a Respondent to be ordered to pay fees in circumstances where an appeal has been struck out for want of jurisdiction. However it should have been clear to the Respondent from the date that it received the application that this appeal had been brought prematurely. It is difficult to understand why they proceeded to prepare for a full hearing rather than raise the jurisdiction issue at an earlier stage. It is also difficult to understand why the Respondent effectively stayed Mr [RESPONDENT] application for a licence pending the determination of an appeal which they knew or ought to have known was brought prematurely.
15. Rule 3(3) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules requires the tribunal to have regard to the overriding objective, which includes the need to deal with cases in ways which are proportionate. Rule 3(4)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013 provides that the parties have a duty to help the tribunal to further the overriding objective. In our view the Respondent ought to have attempted to bring the jurisdiction issue to the attention of both the tribunal and the Applicant earlier than it did. Had they done so it might have avoided the need for this hearing. Consequently we will make a order for the reimbursement of fees, but in respect of the hearing fee only.
Name: Judge O’Brien
Date 3 November 2025
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. 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.
5 2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Appeal Against Improvement Notice Struck Out for Being Out of Time
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Application for lease extension struck out for being late
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Application to Vary Lease Struck Out by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimants' Application for Manager Struck Out Due to Non-Compliance
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Strikes Out Appeal for Late Submission
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Application Struck Out Due to Timing Issue in First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Right to Buy Application Struck Out for Lack of Secure Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Application Struck Out: Claimant Fails to Meet Jurisdiction Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Prohibition Order Upheld Due to Serious Hazards
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Challenge to Parking Penalty Charges Imposed on…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds HMO Fire Safety Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Lease Variation Application
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The case was struck out because the claimant did not follow the required procedure.
- The case was struck out due to the absence of jurisdiction for the tribunal.
- Applications were dismissed when they did not meet statutory requirements.
- Cases were dismissed when the application was submitted even slightly late.
- Claims were dismissed when the applicant failed to comply with the tribunal’s directions.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal against proposed conditions of a selective licensing notice before a license was issued.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the local housing authority.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was premature. The appeal was against conditions that hadn't been finalised in a license.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 2004 and the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the appeal was premature and the conditions hadn't been finalised in a license.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should wait until a license is issued before appealing any conditions.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The correspondence between the tenant and the local housing authority regarding the conditions.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but only to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if permission is granted.
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 complex legal issues.
