Advertising hoardings — Letting of flats — Appellant unlawfully displaying advertisements — Justices convicting appellant of statutory offence — Whether change of sign prima facie evidence of tenancy being granted — Whether appellant taking all reasonable steps to remove signs — Appeal dismissed
The appellant company had been convicted of unlawfully displaying advertisements, contrary to section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. The respondent council had complained that five signs relating to the letting of flats had remained on display at the relevant premises outside the period of deemed permission granted by Part 1 of Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 (under which deemed permission was given, inter alia, to advertisements relating to the letting for residential use of premises upon which the advertisement was displayed). The deemed permission was conditional upon the removal of the sign within 14 days after “a tenancy is granted”.
In each case, the respondents contended that a sign indicating that the premises had been “Let By” the appellant had remained in situ much longer than 14 days from the date upon which the respective tenancies had been granted. The justices agreed and, furthermore, concluded that the appellant had failed to establish the defence provided by section 224(6) of the Act, as amended, namely that it had taken all reasonable steps to remove the signs.
The questions for the court were whether: (i) the justices had been entitled to conclude that the change in the sign from “To Let” to “Let By” was prima facie evidence that a tenancy of the relevant premises had been granted; and (ii) the appellant had taken all reasonable steps to remove the signs.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
(1) The justices had been entitled to conclude that the words “Let By” were prima facie evidence that a tenancy had been granted since it was an unambiguous assertion without qualification that the premises had been let, and the appellant had failed to show that the tenancy in question had been granted much later. Moreover, there was evidence that the signs had remained in position long after the 14 days stipulated.
(2) The appellant had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that it had taken all reasonable steps to remove the signs. In the present case, it was not necessary to define the phrase “tenancy is granted” for the purposes of the 1992 Regulations. The latest date would be the date upon which the tenancy commenced, and this was sufficient to prosecute this case. However, the phrase could also apply to the moment at which the parties to, and the terms of, the tenancy became certain so that a binding contract had come into existence. Depending upon the circumstances, that might or might not be evidenced by signatures on documents.
Roy Morgan (instructed by Morgan’s Solicitors, of Cardiff) appeared for the appellant; Lee Reynolds (instructed by the legal department of Cardiff County Council) appeared for the respondents.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
