Automated Summary
Key Facts
Mr. Mahendra Maharaj, a professional landlord with 78 properties in Liverpool, was penalized by Liverpool City Council for breaching two licence conditions (General Condition 1.2 and 5.6) under the Housing Act 2004 at 68 Fazakerley Road. The council issued final notices on 29 January 2020, imposing penalties of £3,375 (for failing to submit an annual gas safety certificate) and £5,625 (for not conducting biannual property inspections). The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) confirmed both penalties in June 2021 but later granted permission to appeal after the Deputy Chamber President found issues with the specification of the offence in the penalty notice for condition 1.2. The Upper Tribunal quashed the £3,375 penalty for condition 1.2 due to procedural errors in defining the offence but upheld the £5,625 penalty for condition 5.6, as the FTT correctly found no reasonable excuse for the inspection failure.
Issues
- The second issue addresses the precise point in time at which a local housing authority has 'sufficient evidence' of a breach of the mandatory condition requiring annual submission of a gas safety certificate (Schedule 4, paragraph 1(2) of the Housing Act 2004). This involves interpreting the six-month time limit for issuing a notice of intent and whether the authority's evidence was sufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof.
- The first issue concerns whether a local housing authority's specification of the particulars of the offence in civil penalty notices complies with legal requirements, particularly when the stated basis of the offence differs from the actual finding by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). This includes whether the FTT erred in upholding a penalty based on a flawed statement of reasons that did not accurately reflect the breach found.
Holdings
- The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the financial penalty for breach of Licence Condition 1.2 (gas safety certificate requirement) on the grounds that the FTT's notice of intent was time-barred under Schedule 13A paragraph 2(1) of the 2004 Act. The six-month period for issuing a notice of intent expired on or shortly after 4 January 2019, but the notice was issued on 8 November 2019. The Tribunal emphasized that the FTT's final notice must clearly specify the particulars of the offence to avoid procedural defects.
- The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the financial penalty for breach of Licence Condition 5.6 (inspection requirement), affirming the FTT's finding that the appellant failed to prove a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. The FTT's assessment of witness credibility (favoring the tenant) and the lack of documentary evidence supporting the appellant's defense were upheld as rationally supportable and not plainly wrong.
Remedies
- Affirmed
- Quashed
Legal Principles
- The local housing authority must prove the breach of licence conditions beyond reasonable doubt under s.249A of the Housing Act 2004. The appellant bears the burden of proving a defence (reasonable excuse) under s.95(4) to the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities).
- Civil penalties under the 2004 Act require the same criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) as prosecutions. The defence of reasonable excuse must be proven to the civil standard (balance of probabilities).
Precedent Name
- Volpi v Volpi
- Pinto v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
Cited Statute
- Housing and Planning Act 2016
- Housing Act 2004
- Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Judge Name
His Honour Judge Hodge QC
Passage Text
- For these reasons, the Tribunal allows the appeal from the FTT's decision to confirm the final notice in respect of the breach of licence condition 1.2 and it quashes the resulting financial penalty of £3,375.
- The FTT's finding that the tenant did not deliberately, or consistently, deny the appellant access to the property cannot properly be characterised as a decision that no reasonable tribunal could have reached.
- In the Tribunal's judgment, the FTT fell into error in two respects when it upheld the final notice imposing a financial penalty for the alleged breach of licence condition 1.2. First, the FTT fell into error in treating the final notice, and the antecedent notice of intent, as disclosing any breach of that licence condition.