Heading

Case No: LC-2023-223
ON APPEAL FROM THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)
FTT Ref: CAM/26UL/HNA/2022/0003
Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand, London WC2A
29 January 2024
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
HOUSING – CIVIL PENALTY – validity of notice of intent to impose financial penalty – adequacy of statement of reasons – whether failure to give sufficient reasons invalidated penalty or was cured by other material from which reasons were apparent – section 249A, Housing Act 2004 – Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 – appeal allowed
BETWEEN:
WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL
Appellant
-and-
HONGMEI WANG
Respondent
132 Aldykes,
Roe Green, Hatfield
Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President
16 January 2024
Tara O’Leary, instructed by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council for the Appellant
The respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Director of Public Prosecutions v McFarlane [2020] 1 Cr. App. R. 4
Maharaj v Liverpool City Council [2022] UKUT 140 (LC)
Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co. Ltd [1997] AC 749
Nash v Birmingham Crown Court [2005] EWHC 338
Newbold v Coal Authority [2014] 1 WLR 1288
R v Home Sec., Ex p Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354
Waltham Forest LBC v Younis [2019] UKUT 362 (LC)
- Heading
- Introduction
- The relevant statutory provisions
- Defects in compliance with statutory procedures
- The facts
- The notices
- The FTT’s decision
- The grounds of appeal
- Ground 1: Did the notices of intent comply with the requirement to state the Council’s reasons for proposing to impose the financial penalty?
- Ground 2: whether the effect of providing an insufficiently precise statement of reasons in a notice of intent is that the notice of intent and the subsequent final penalty notice are void
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 24 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)