Improve Your Performance With New Analytics 26th June 2020 Reportable Appealing Against Fundamentally Flawed Decisions 23rd June 2020 RIAMS Wales is Re-opening – Are Your Businesses Ready? 19th June 2020 Training Time’s Running Out to Fill in Our Survey 15th June 2020 The Noise App Half-Price RIAMS Training Now Available 10th June 2020 RIAMS Delivering Remote Services Using The Noise App 10th June 2020 The Noise App How Can The Noise App Help You?  9th June 2020 The Noise App Half-Price Training on The Noise App Now Available 3rd June 2020 The Noise App We Would Love to Hear Your Thoughts 2nd June 2020 Training Introducing RIAMS 1st June 2020 RIAMS Unlocking Noise Problems 5th May 2020 The Noise App Housing Enforcement Responses to the Covid-19 Outbreak 5th May 2020 RIAMS Tackling ASB in Challenging Times 30th April 2020 RIAMS London Councils vs Gypsy Travellers 23rd April 2020 RIAMS Noise Complaints Surge During Covid-19 Lockdown 9th April 2020 The Noise App Avoiding Direct Contact Using Remote Servicing of Noise Complaints 27th March 2020 The Noise App Environmental Health COVID-19 Response 27th March 2020 RIAMS Keep Working With RHE Training During the Coronavirus Outbreak 23rd March 2020 Training The Importance of Data in Public Protection 18th March 2020 RIAMS RIAMS Communities is Now in It’s Third Year 5th March 2020 RIAMS Supporting Environmental Health in the Event of a Coronavirus Outbreak  28th February 2020 RIAMS Summing up our ‘How to’ series 25th February 2020 RIAMS Customise Your Sources 19th February 2020 The Noise App Introduce Successful Cost-Recovery Initiatives 19th February 2020 RIAMS How to Add your Organisation Logo and Set Local Colours 18th February 2020 RIAMS

Appealing Against Fundamentally Flawed Decisions

23rd June 2020 RIAMS

This Upper Tribunal case focuses on a joint appeal from the First-tier Tribunal by the London Borough of Waltham Forest.

The First-tier Tribunal had significantly reduced the charges to be imposed by Waltham Forest against two landlords who had failed to properly licence their properties in the district under their selective licensing scheme.

In the first case, between the council and Mr Marshall, the charges had been reduced from £5,000 to £1,500 and in the second, the charges against Mr Ustek had been reduced from £12,000 (with deductions) to £4,000.

In rehearing the case, the Upper Tribunal concluded that the initial decision gave rise to a number of concerns, namely:

  • The First-tier Tribunal paid lip-service to the councils’ civil penalties policy but then paid no further attention to it and did not acknowledge that it was departing from the policy.
  • They failed to consider the need for consistency between offenders and while they did pay lip service to the reasons for financial penalty regime, there is no sign that those reasons had any effect on its own reasoning.
  • The FTT paid little or no regard to the decision taken by the local authority. Had it sought to understand the matrix, it would have seen why the authority reached the conclusion it did.

The Tribunal regarded the FTT’s decision as fundamentally flawed; it was wrong to depart from or to ignore the appellants’ policy for determining the level of financial penalties and the decision in each case was based on inadequate or irrelevant considerations.

In each case, the original penalties, of £5,000 and £12,000 respectively, were reinstated.

You can read a full overview of the case in the Housing Professionals forum on RIAMS Communities, available here.