[2024] UKUT 00300 (LC)

The following background information is taken from the FTT’s decision of 18 December 2023 and from the witness statement filed with the FTT by the Council in response to Mr Deane’s appeal against the financial penalty notice and documents exhibited to it.

86A Hatherley Gardens is part of a terraced house in East Ham which was visited by officers of the Council in October 2021 and found to be an unlicensed HMO. The officers were shown a copy of a tenancy agreement dated 5 March 2020 signed only by the two tenants named in the document but which identifying Mr Deane, the appellant, as the landlord. One of the tenants later signed a statement saying that he paid rent using a banking app, that he had last seen the landlord or the landlord’s agent three years earlier (without saying which he had seen) and that he did not speak to the landlord but only to the agent. The agent was named as Tantum Property.

The Council carried out further investigations which established that Mr Deane is not the registered proprietor of the property. Nor was any connection identified between Mr Deane and 86A Hatherley Gardens in official records, although it was established that he was connected with a number of other properties including 86 Hatherley Gardens.

Mr Deane informed the FTT that he had previously been a director of Tantum Property Consultants Ltd, but that it had ceased trading in February 2020 when its assets and trading name were sold to Stonehenge Property Management Ltd. The management of both 86 and 86A Hatherley Gardens was part of the business of Tantum but the two properties were owned by different people. In his witness statement Mr Deane described 86 Hatherley Gardens as “my family property” and said, correctly, that 86A Hatherley Gardens is owned by Sanam Raujackdine. He said that he had no further involvement with the business after the handover to Stonehenge was completed and that Stonehenge had taken over management of both Nos. 86 and 86A. Mr Deane’s explanation for the appearance of his name on the tenancy agreement for No.86A was that it was a mistake by Stonehenge after it had taken over management and that he had signed the tenancy agreement in the belief that it related to his family property at No.86.

On 12 October 2022 the Council served notice of its intent to impose a financial penalty on Mr Deane. The reason for the penalty was stated to be that Mr Deane was the managing agent of No.86A and had failed to licence it as an HMO. The Council was aware that Mr Deane was not the owner of the property and, according to Mr Deane, it also served a notice of intent to impose a separate financial penalty on Ms Raujackdine, the registered proprietor of No.86A.

The Council received a response to the notice of intent served on Mr Deane by email from someone describing themselves as an office administrator at Deane Holdings who stated simply that 86A Hatherley Gardens did not belong to Mr Deane. The Council proposed to make a further visit to the property and served notices of entry at the various addresses it had for Mr Deane. It received a further response from the administrator at Deane Holdings repeating that the property was not owned by Mr Deane.

Despite these representations and apparently without carrying out any further investigation the Council decided to proceed with the financial penalty and served a final notice on Mr Deane imposing a penalty of £7,500 on 25 November 2022. The reason given in the notice was that: “being the managing person of the property at 86A Hatherley Gardens … you did fail to licence an HMO and thereby committed an offence under section 72(1) of Housing Act 2004.” The reasons did not explain why the Council believed Mr Deane was “the managing person” and did not refer to the response it had received to the notice of intent.

According to Mr Deane, the Council also served a final notice on Ms Raujackdine, imposing a separate financial penalty of £5,000 on her as the person having control of No.86A.