Case No. UKUT-241-(LC)

35.Ground 1 of the Council’s appeal is that the statutory provisions in the Act required the FTT to decide the appeal on the basis of facts that existed at the date of its own decision, 25 November 2018, disregarding any matters that post-date that decision. It accepts that the FTT could properly take into account matters that existed but were not known to the Council at the time of its decision but disputes that anything that happened after that time could properly be taken into account by the FTT.36.Section 88 in Part 3 of the 2004 Act provides:“(1) Where an application in respect of a house is made to the local housing authority under section 87, the authority must either—(a) grant a licence in accordance with subsection (2), or(b) refuse to grant a licence.(2) If the authority are satisfied as to the matters mentioned in subsection (3), they may grant a licence either— (a) to the applicant, or (b) to some other person, if both he and the applicant agree.(3) The matters are— (a) that the proposed licence holder— (i) is a fit and proper person to be the licence holder, and(ii) is, out of all the persons reasonably available to be the licence holder in respect of the house, the most appropriate person to be the licence holder…” (emphasis added)Where a valid application is made, the authority therefore must grant or refuse a licence, and, where satisfied as to the matters required to be established by the applicant, they may grant a licence.37. Section 89 of the Act provides:“(1) In deciding for the purposes of section 88(3)(a) or (c) whether a person (“P”) is a fit and proper person to be the licence holder or (as the case may be) the manager of the house, the local housing authority must have regard (among other things) to any evidence within subsection (2) or (3).(2) Evidence is within this subsection if it shows that P has—(a) committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty …..…..(c) contravened any provision of the law relating to housing or of landlord and tenant law (3) Evidence is within this subsection if—(a) it shows that any person associated or formerly associated with P (whether on a personal, work or other basis) has done any of the things set out in subsection (2)(a) to (c), and(b) it appears to the authority that the evidence is relevant to the question whether P is a fit and proper person to be the licence holder or (as the case may be) the manager of the house.” (emphasis added)Thus, the authority must have regard to a relevant conviction of the proposed licence holder and must have regard to a relevant conviction of a person associated with the proposed licence holder but only if they consider that such conviction is relevant to the fitness of the proposed licence holder. What weight the authority gives to any such evidence is, however, a matter for its reasonable discretion.38.Section 93 provides:“(1) The local housing authority may revoke a licence—(a) if they do so with the agreement of the licence holder,(b) in any of the cases mentioned in subsection (2) (circumstances relating to licence holder or other person) …..(2) The cases referred to in subsection (1)(b) are as follows—(a) where the authority consider that the licence holder or any other person has committed a serious breach of a condition of the licence or repeated breaches of such a condition;(b) where the authority no longer consider that the licence holder is a fit and proper person to be the licence holder ….”39.By para 31 of Schedule 5 to the Act, the applicant for a licence or any relevant person may appeal to the appropriate tribunal against a decision by the local housing authority to refuse to grant the licence or to grant it, or in relation to the terms of the licence.40.By para 32 of Schedule 5, the licence holder or any relevant person may appeal to the appropriate tribunal against a decision by the local housing authority to vary or revoke a licence or to refuse to vary or revoke a licence.41.Para 34 of Schedule 5, headed “