The evidence
The evidence
The FTT conducted a video-hearing at which oral evidence was given by the two Council officers who had visited the property, and by the two former tenants, Mr Sona and Mr Mursa. In its decision of 1 August 2022 the FTT recited the written evidence at some length, together with answers given to questions it had put to the witnesses. The officers gave details of their investigations and the following is a summary of the critical parts of the evidence of other witnesses.
Mr Sona confirmed to the FTT that Room 5 had always been occupied while he lived at the property. He named the two tenants as ‘Jech’ who had lived there for 3 months before being moved out on the day of the first inspection, and ‘Mark’, who moved out after between one and two years because the room was too small. He was unable to describe either of them in any detail.
Ms Morjaria did not attend the hearing but submitted a statement in which she maintained that Room 5 had never been rented out, other than to Mr Mursa to use as storage. She said this arrangement had begun in 2020 when a sum of £150 a month was agreed as additional rent. She had attended the property to collect that sum in person on 6 August but Mr Mursa had not been present. Instead, she found a friend of Mr Mursa’s in his room (Room 1) who handed over £150 to her in cash in return for a receipt. Ms Morjaria denied having visited the property on 11 August or having moved anyone out of Room 5.
Mr Mursa had been the tenant of Room 1 and had returned to live in the house by the time he made his witness statement. In it he confirmed the informal arrangement to pay £150 a month to use Room 5 to store goods he bought and sold at online auctions. He said he had run an extension cable from the landing so that he could plug a lamp in when he was using the room as there was no charge on the key meter. He had cleared the room and provided a mattress to enable his friend ‘Jech’ or ‘Wojech’, to stay for a few days, and he had paid the rent of £150 to Ms Morjaria on Mr Mursa’s behalf when she called to collect it. Jech had then moved out and returned to Poland.
In response to questions from the FTT Mr Mursa said he had used Room 5 “off and on” at various times since 2019 but could not provide dates. He had met Jech at a party in 2019 and when he needed somewhere to stay for his job Mr Mursa had allowed him to use Room 5. He could not say what Lech’s job was. Mr Mursa thought he had stayed for been two or three weeks, and he had not informed Ms Morjaria. Mr Mursa gave two accounts of how the rent for Room 5 was paid. First, he explained that he usually paid the rent by bank transfer and had paid in cash for Room 5 on only one occasion. He could not explain why his name did not appear on the receipt given by Ms Morjaria. He then said that he had only ever paid rent for Room 5 once, after he had informed Ms Morjaria that he had allowed a friend to stay, which had caused her to become angry.
The FTT also referred to a statement submitted by an electrician who said he had carried out an annual fire alarm safety check at the property in 2020 and 2021. He had tested the smoke alarm in Room 5 on both occasions and had seen no evidence of anyone living there. The maker of the statement did not attend the hearing.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- The Council’s investigation
- The penalty
- The evidence
- The FTT’s decision
- The appeal
- Ground 1: The period of the offence
- Ground 2 - Failure to give appropriate weight to the Council’s policy
- Ground 3 – Should the Council’s costs of investigating the offence be added to the penalty?
- The appropriate penalty
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 129 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)