Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Applicant, Mr Naveed Hussain (now Navid Shabir), admitted to breaching Management Regulations 4, 7, and 8 at 249 & 251 Pitsmoor Road, Sheffield. He was the registered proprietor and manager of the properties, despite claims that his brother, Mr Hussain, managed them via a Power of Attorney. The Council initially assessed culpability as high with medium harm for Regulations 4 and 7, and low harm for Regulation 8, resulting in £75,000 in penalties. The Tribunal adjusted harm to low for all breaches after confirming remedial work was completed, reducing penalties for Regulations 4 and 7 to £7,500 each while retaining £7,500 for Regulation 8. The Applicant’s history of non-compliance and previous housing convictions (2014 and 2018) were key factors in determining culpability. The Tribunal rejected his claim of unawareness, noting mail redirection and his role in signing tenancy agreements and managing Housing Benefit claims.
Issues
- The Council initially assessed harm as medium for Regulations 4 and 7, but the Tribunal adjusted this to low for all breaches due to remedial work completed by the Applicant. The low harm assessment was based on the properties now meeting satisfactory standards, though culpability remained high.
- The Tribunal determined that the Applicant had received correspondence via Royal Mail redirection and hand delivery, despite his claims of not being notified. The Council's letters to the Applicant's former address at 253 Pitsmoor Road and subsequent redirection to 4 Club Street were accepted as valid communication. The Applicant's failure to attend interviews under caution was found credible by the Tribunal.
- The Applicant claimed Mr. Hussain managed the Properties via a Power of Attorney, but the Tribunal found this evidence lacking. Mr. Hussain's presence during Council inspections and his statements were inconsistent with the Applicant's claims. The Tribunal accepted the Council's position that the Applicant retained control over the Properties.
- The Tribunal found aggravating factors (e.g., financial gain, systematic non-compliance, failure to attend interviews) outweighed mitigating factors (e.g., remedial work, Power of Attorney claims). The Applicant's arguments for reducing penalties based on mitigating factors were rejected, resulting in no further adjustments to the £7500 penalties per breach.
- The Tribunal upheld high culpability for all breaches, rejecting the Applicant's assertion that he was unaware of issues due to moving and delegating management to his brother. Evidence showed the Applicant signed tenancy agreements, managed bank accounts, and had a history of housing offences, indicating systematic failure to comply with legal duties.
Holdings
- The Tribunal determined that the Applicant's culpability for all breaches remains high, as he did not provide credible reasons to lower it. The evidence showed a systematic failure to comply with legal duties despite multiple opportunities to address issues.
- The Financial Penalties were adjusted to £7,500 for breaches of Regulations 4 and 7 (based on high culpability and low harm) and remained at £7,500 for Regulation 8. The Applicant must pay the penalties within 28 days of receiving the decision.
- The Tribunal found that harm for all breaches is now low, as the Properties were brought up to satisfactory standards by the time of the hearing, reducing the risk to tenants. This contrasts with the Council's initial assessment of medium harm for some breaches.
Remedies
The Tribunal confirmed financial penalties of £7500 each for breaches of Regulations 4, 7, and 8 at 249 & 251 Pitsmoor Road. The Applicant is required to pay all penalties within 28 days of receiving this decision.
Monetary Damages
45000.00
Legal Principles
- The Tribunal disregarded the Applicant's formal claims (e.g., Power of Attorney) in favor of the substance of evidence showing his continued control over the Properties. This included signing tenancy agreements and managing Housing Benefit applications, contradicting his assertions about delegation.
- The Tribunal applied the standard of proof (balance of probabilities) to evaluate the credibility of the Applicant and Mr. Hussain's evidence. Their explanations were deemed implausible, particularly regarding the Power of Attorney and lack of communication about property issues.
- The Tribunal assessed the Applicant's burden of proof regarding his claimed lack of knowledge about property management. The Applicant failed to demonstrate credible evidence that he was unaware of the Council's notices or that his brother was the sole manager, leading the Tribunal to uphold the Council's position.
Cited Statute
- Housing Act 2004
- Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006
- Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
Judge Name
J. E. Oliver
Passage Text
- 81. The penalties, when taking culpability as high and harm low for the breaches of Regulations 4 and 7, reduces them to £7500 for each penalty. The penalties for the breaches of Regulation 8 remain as before, being based on high culpability and low harm.
- 70. The Tribunal noted there was no dispute the Applicant had committed the housing offences by reason of the breaches of Regulations 4, 7 and 8. It was accepted the Applicant is the manager of the Properties and had received the relevant Notices relating to the housing offences. He did not dispute his culpability for the offences. Mr Griffiths had confirmed the only issue for determination was the amount of each of the Financial Penalties upon the issue of culpability, harm and both the aggravating and mitigating factors applied by the Council.
- 78. The Tribunal determines culpability for all the breaches remains high. When taking into account the Guidelines relied upon by the Council and the reasons given for culpability, the Applicant has not given any credible reasons why that should be lowered to either medium or low.