Case No. UKUT-241-(LC)

11.The 4 grounds of the Council’s appeal are:“1.The FTT misdirected itself by seeking to assess whether FHCO was a fit and proper person as at the date of the appeal hearing rather than at the date of the decisions under appeal, and by failing to take into account the Council’s findings about FHCO’s fitness as at that relevant date.2.The FTT wrongly held that the Council had no power to pose questions directed to eliciting FHCO’s absence of assets, reserves or employees.3.The FTT erred in allowing Farina [Hussain]’s appeal, reversing the Council’s decision to revoke her licence, and “reinstating” her licence.4.The FTT misdirected itself as to the evidence about Farina [Hussain], and therefore wrongly concluded that both she and FHCO were fit and proper persons to be licence holders.”12.The ground of cross-appeal by the Respondents is that the FTT erred in its interpretation of the Services Regulations by holding that licences could not be deemed to have been granted in circumstances where the Council had not complied with its obligation under the Services Regulations to fix in advance and identify a period of time within which it would determine licence applications.