Upper Tribunal allows landlord to bring late appeal over HMO licensing monetary penalty
A man who said he failed to submit an appeal in time because he contracted Covid-19 has convinced the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to set aside a First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) decision that his case against Bradford Metropolitan District Council could not proceed.
Hasan Kazi owns a number of houses in multiple occupation. In June 2022 the council issued a final notice of a financial penalty of £13,250, on the ground that he had failed to comply with The Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007.
The council complained of failure to provide information to the tenants, ineffective fire doors, rubbish in the garden and poor decorative repair.
Kazi submitted his appeal in August 2022 to the FTT and explained that he knew he was out of time but asked for an extension due to his earlier illness.
In September 2022 the FTT struck out the appeal as out of time and refused an extension because it felt Mr Kazi “failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why he was unable to follow the guidance issued and make his appeal within the time allowed…the reasons given are insufficient to explain or justify a delay of this magnitude”.
Setting this aside, Judge Elizabeth Cooke said in Kazi v Bradford Borough Council (HOUSING - CIVIL PENALTY - procedure) [2023] UKUT 128 (LC) that the FTT’s explanation “was expressed in entirely generic terms and did not engage with the reason given by the applicant for the delay in submitting the appeal (i.e. that he is elderly and within two weeks or so of receiving the civil penalty notice he contracted Covid from which he then took several weeks to recover, leaving him unable to submit his appeal until 19 August)”.
Judge Cooke went on to note that FTT had not said whether it accepted Kazi’s account as truthful, and if not why not, and nor did it say why, if it accepted the explanation as true, it found it an inadequate explanation for the relatively short delay in submitting the appeal.
She said: “It is well known that Covid can cause exhaustion; the delay was of less than a month and so was commensurate with the length of time for which the appellant said he was ill.” The FTT also did not say whether it wanted to see any medical evidence.
Judge Cooke concluded: “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the FTT either did not take in and give proper consideration to the explanation the appellant gave, so that it failed to take into account a relevant consideration, or did not give reasons why it found the explanation inadequate.”
The judge reinstated Kazi’s appeal from the financial penalty and told him to apply to the FTT for directions in order to pursue his appeal.
Mark Smulian
