Decision Nº HA 11 2019. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 20-03-2020 , [2020] UKUT 0090 (LC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President Mr Peter McCrea FRICS |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 0090 (LC) |
| Date | 20 March 2020 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) |
| Judgement Number | HA 11 2019 |
1
UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)
UT Neutral citation number: [2020] UKUT 0090 (LC)
UTLC Case Number: HA/11/2019
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
HOUSING – CIVIL PENALTIES – whether converted office building a section 257 HMO or
an “apart-hotel” – non-compliance with improvement notices – breaches of HMO Licensing
and Management Regulations – service of notices by email – reasonable excuse defence –
maximum penalties imposed on corporate building owner and on director for multiple breaches
– section 257, Housing Act 2004 – Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple
Occupation (Additional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007 – appeals allowed in part
IN THE MATTER OF APPEALS UNDER SCHEDULE 13A, HOUSING ACT 2004
BETWEEN:
NICHOLAS SUTTON (1)
FAITHS' LANE APARTMENTS LIMITED
(in administration) (2)
Appellants
and
NORWICH CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
Re: Max House,
Wales Square,
60 St Faiths Lane,
Norwich,
NR1 1NN
Martin Rodger QC, Deputy Chamber President and Peter D McCrea FRICS
Royal Courts of Justice
7-10 January 2020
Mr Nicholas Sutton, the first appellant, represented himself
There was no attendance on behalf of the second appellant
Marcus Croskell and Lynne Shirley, instructed by NP Law, for the respondent
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020
2
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143
Crawley BC v Sawyer (1987) 20 HLR 98
Darlington Borough Council v Kaye [2004] EWHC 2836 (Admin)
Godwin v DPP (1993) 96 Cr. App. R. 244
Hastie & Jenkerson v McMahon [1990] 1 WLR 1575
IR Management Services Ltd v Salford City Council [2020] UKUT 81 (LC)
Living Waters Christian Centres Ltd v Conwy CBC (1998) 30 HLR 371, C.A.
London Borough of Waltham Forest v Marshall [2020] UKUT 0035 (LC)
Okereke v Brent London Borough Council [1967] 1 Q.B. 42, C.A.
PNC Telecom plc v Thomas [2003] BCC 202
R v Hackney LBC ex p. Evenbray Ltd (1987) HLR 191, QBD
R v Petrie [1961] 1 WLR 358
R v Rollco Screw and Rivet Co Ltd [1999] 2 Cr App R(S) 436
R v Unah [2012] 1 WLR 545
UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council [2018] UKSC 67
3
Contents
paragraphs
Introduction
1-3
The facts in outline
4-29
The statutory enforcement of housing standards
30-57
The issues in the appeal and the burden of proof
58-60
Was Max House a section 257 HMO?
61-99
The validity of the improvement notices – improper purpose
100-109
Can financial penalties be imposed on Mr Sutton personally?
110-119
Were the financial penalty notices properly served?
120-138
Was either of the appellants the manager of Max House and responsible for
compliance with the 2007 Regulations?
139-143
Were the 2007 Regulations breached?
144-184
Were the improvement notices complied with?
185-211
Have either FLAL or Mr Sutton established a defence of reasonable excuse?
212-234
The appeals against the quantum of the penalties imposed
235-302
The prohibition order appeal
Disposal
303-307
308
Introduction
1. This is the decision of the Tribunal on a number of appeals by Mr Nicholas Sutton and
Faith’s Lane Apartments Ltd (FLAL) which principally concern civil financial penalties
imposed on them by Norwich City Council under section 249A, Housing Act 2004. The
penalties relate to alleged breaches of the 2004 Act concerning compliance with
improvement notices served by the Council on FLAL, and breaches of the Licensing and
Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions)(England)
Regulations 2007 (the 2007 Regulations) in respect of Max House, a former office building
at 60 St Faiths Lane, Norwich. FLAL owns the freehold of Max House and Mr Sutton is its
sole director and majority shareholder.
2. In aggregate the penalties imposed on Mr Sutton and FLAL totalled £236,600 each. The
civil penalty regime is a relatively new one, and for that reason, and because of the
magnitude of the penalties and the number of issues, the appeals were transferred to the
Upper Tribunal for hearing.
3. On 16 August 2019, shortly before the appeals were due to be heard, FLAL went into
administration. That led to a postponement of the hearing to enable Mr Sutton to obtain new
representation (having previously instructed solicitors and counsel with the company). In the
To continue reading
Request your trial