Tribunal Upholds £5,000 Penalty for Unlicensed Rental Property

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :

LON/00BB/HNA/2024/0614

Property : 12 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : I/P Respondents : [redacted] Borough of Newham Representative : [COUNSEL] [NAME], counsel Type of [NAME] : Appeal against a financial penalty Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Ms S Coughlin MCIEH Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing Date of decision : 1 October 2025 19 November 2025

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal confirms the respondent’s decision to issue a Financial

Penalty Notice in the sum of £5,000 and dismisses the appeal. _____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. This is an appeal against a Financial Penalty Final Notice dated 13

August 2024 imposing a financial penalty of £5,000 for failing to obtain

a selective licence for the subject property at 12 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the property’)

pursuant to s.95(1) of the Housing Act 2004. The background 2. The subject property comprises a flat in a purpose-built block of flats. On

1st June 2023, a Licensing Scheme for single family dwellings (Selective

Licensing) was brought into effect by the respondent until 31 May 2028.

The applicant was notified of this scheme but failed to apply for a

selective licence until 5 July 2024. On 14 May 2024, the respondent’s

employee [RESPONDENT] [NAME] visited the property and confirmed it was

rented to [NAME] [NAME] as a single family. 3. A Notice of Intention to issue a Financial Penalty dated 27 June 2024

was sent to the respondent and on 13 August 2024 a Final Notice

notifying the applicant that a financial penalty of £5,000 had been

imposed on him for failing to obtain a selective licence. The hearing 5. The tribunal was provided with a bundle of 33 pages by the applicant and

a digital bundle of 96 pages from the respondent. The tribunal also

heard oral evidence from the applicant in person and [NAME] [APPELLANT]

on behalf of the respondent. A skeleton argument was also provided to

the tribunal by counsel for the respondent [COUNSEL] [NAME] as well as a

written statement relied upon by the applicant. As this appeal was by way

of a re-hearing the burden of proof fell on the respondent to prove its

case i.e. the decision to find an offence had been committed and to issue

a financial penalty in the sum of £5,000. The respondent’s case 6. The respondent relied on the written and oral evidence of [NAME] [RESPONDENT]

[NAME] from the [NAME], who in a

witness statement dated 30 April 2025 gave evidence of the approval and

3

introduction of the Selective Licensing Scheme. Details of the Financial

Penalty Matrix were also set out in the witness statement and [NAME]

[NAME] gave evidence to the tribunal as to how that Financial

Matrix Policy had been applied resulting in a score of 11-15 and the issue

of a financial penalty in the sum of £5,000. 7. The respondent asserted the applicant had not denied the property was

let as at the date of the offence to a single family or that he had not

obtained a selective licence. Consequently, the applicant committed an

offence during the period 1 June 2023 to 3 July 2024 when he applied

for a licence. The respondent asserted that the applicant had failed to

establish on the balance of probabilities a defence of ‘reasonable excuse’

under s.95(4) of the Housing Act 2004 on any grounds. The applicant’s case 8. As the lawfulness of the Policy behind the decision to impose a Selective

Licensing Scheme cannot be challenged in this tribunal, the applicant

relied on a defence of reasonable excuse and asserted:

(a) The London Borough of Newham ([NAME]) is required to

prove its case on the criminal standard of proof i.e. beyond

reasonable doubt.

(b) [NAME] has failed to prove the offence pursuant to s.95(1) has

been committed because the [NAME] for a selective

licence was commenced before 14/05/2024 was delayed by

the acts of the respondent due to the portal being difficult

to navigate and suffering ‘technical issues.’

(c) The London Borough of Newham ([NAME]) erroneously

considered he owned 3 rather than the 2 properties;

(d) [NAME] had not logically or objectively applied the Financial

Penalty Matrix and should have scored certain matters at

0 rather than 1;

(e) [NAME] should have issued a warning rather than a fine. 9. In his Statement, the applicant informed the tribunal that he was an

experienced [NAME] who had worked with a number of [NAME] and was familiar with financial penalty schemes. The

applicant also asserted that notwithstanding his years of experience he

found navigating the respondent’s online licensing [NAME] portal

difficult. [NAME] [NAME] also told the tribunal that on 3 July 2024 the

respondent’s portal was experiencing technical difficulties which

prevented him from progressing his [NAME] for a selective licence.

On 20 August 2024 the applicant was informed that his [NAME] for

4

a selective licence would be cancelled if not completed within a week.

The applicant also told the tribunal that he had travelled from Nigeria

where he spends a significant amount of time, in order to resolve the

issue of his [NAME] as despite completing and submitting the

[NAME] he was unable to make payment, having wanted to make

an initial payment of £400 and then £350 at a later date. 10. On questioning at the tribunal the applicant accepted that when he had

initially applied for the selective licence in October 2023 he was unable

to complete it due to not having all the requested details and documents

available. Subsequently he started a new [NAME] which he asserted

he tried to complete in the period October 2023 to January 2024. 11. [NAME] [NAME] also told the tribunal he had suffered from ill-health in

November which had prevented him from completing the licence

[NAME] in a timely manner. The decision 12. Section 95(1) of the Housing Act 2004 states:

(1)A person commits an offence if he is a person having

control of or managing a house which is required to be

licensed under this Part (see section 85(1)) but is not so

licensed. 13. Having considered the written evidence from both parties and heard the

oral evidence of [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME], the tribunal is satisfied

so that it is sure, the applicant committed the offence of having the

control of or was managing an unlicensed property that was required to

be licensed the London Borough of Newham’s selective licensing

scheme. 14. The tribunal was also satisfied that the respondent had objectively

applied its Financial Penalty Matrix and concluded that a financial

penalty of £5,000 was appropriate. The tribunal finds whether the

respondent attributed 2 or 3 properties to the ownership of the applicant

as a small landlord, the outcome number of ‘1’ remained the same and

the total in any event remained the same i.e.13 points. Reasonable excuse 15. Section 95(4) of the Housing Act 2004 states:

(4)In proceedings against a person for an offence under

subsection (1) or (2) it is a defence that he had a

reasonable excuse—

5

(a)for having control of or managing the house in the

circumstances mentioned in subsection (1), or

(b)for failing to comply with the condition. 16. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show on the balance of

probabilities he had a ‘reasonable excuse’ for the commission of the

offence under s.95(1) of the 2004 Act. The tribunal finds the applicant

has failed to discharge this burden. [NAME] [APPELLANT] accepted he received

notification of the newly introduced selective licensing scheme and was

aware he was required to obtain a licence for the subject property. The

tribunal finds the applicant’s repeated attempts and subsequent

cancellations of his [NAME] were due to his failure to provide all of

the required information rather than due to any difficulty in navigating

the portal or technical issues. Although the tribunal accepts he

applicant had a period of ill-health in later 2023, it also finds that the

this did not prevent him from pursuing his [NAME], as he accepted

in the tribunal he had taken and was able to use his laptop even during

his hospital stay in Nigeria. 17. The tribunal finds that it was the applicant’s own unwillingness or

inability to provide information and pay the required amount that

prevented him from successfully completing the [NAME] for a

selective licence. The tribunal does not find these matters constitute a

‘reasonable’ excuse. 18. Further, the tribunal finds it was appropriate for the respondent to issue

a fine rather than a warning as the applicant had been given ample notice

of the newly introduced licensing scheme, as well as significant

opportunity to apply for a licence before the penalty was imposed. 19. In conclusion, the tribunal confirms the respondent’s decision to issue a

Financial Penalty Notice in the sum of £5,000. Therefore, the appeal is

dismissed.

Name:

Judge Tagliavini Date: 1 November 2025

Rights of appeal

6 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 [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).