The First-tier Tribunal has power to extend time to enable a landlord to bring an appeal against a civil penalty out of time. When the landlord makes an application to bring such an appeal out of time, the FTT should give due consideration to the application and give reasons for its decision not to exercise its discretion.
In Kazi v Bradford MDC [2023] UKUT 128 (LC) the appellant, who was aged 73, was the freehold owner of a house in multiple occupation in Bradford.
On 23 June 2022, the respondent, Bradford Metropolitan District Council, imposed a notice of a financial penalty against the appellant in the sum of £13,250. The financial penalty was imposed under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004 because the respondent was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant, being the person managing the property, had failed to comply with the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007.
The 2007 regulations were made pursuant to section 234(1) and 234(3) of the 2004 Act. It was enacted to ensure HMOs adhered to satisfactory management arrangements and that those standards of management were complied with.
Under schedule 13A of the 2004 Act, a person in receipt of a notice of a financial penalty could appeal the same within 28 days of receipt to the FTT. The appellant filed his appeal out of time on 19 August 2022. He explained that he received the appeal on 27 June 2022, but that he fell ill in the middle of July 2022. He tested positive with Covid on 7 August 2022 and had filed his application as soon as he was well enough to do so. The FTT struck out the appeal because out of time and the appellant had given insufficient reasons “to explain or justify a delay of this magnitude”.
In allowing the appeal, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) found the FTT had failed to give due consideration to the explanation given by the appellant for the delay. The FTT may have been dissatisfied because the appellant failed to provide any medical evidence in support of his application, but this was not the reason why it refused to exercise its discretion. It simply failed to give any reasons for reaching its decision.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
