Next Location Company Limited v London Borough of Haringey

The statutory definition of a person managing premises is not satisfied merely because a person has a management agreement, performs management-related tasks, or benefits indirectly from occupational payments. The person must fall within the statutory categories, including being an owner or lessee who receives rent or other payments from occupiers, or an agent through whom such payments are received. An appellate tribunal may set aside a First-tier Tribunal finding where the necessary statutory facts are neither found nor supported by the evidence. A penalty decision must also contain sufficient reasons, including a proper explanation of the amount imposed by reference to the relevant enforcement policy.

The appellant appealed against the First-tier Tribunal’s dismissal of its appeal against a £10,000 financial penalty imposed by the London Borough of Haringey for managing an unlicensed house in multiple occupation. The FTT found that the appellant was a managing agent for the freeholders, had permitted subletting, had undertaken a repair, and received rent from another company, Come to London Limited.

Permission to appeal was granted on the questions whether the appellant was a person managing the property on the relevant date and whether the amount of the penalty was adequately explained.

1. Appeal allowed. The FTT’s decision was set aside, and the Upper Tribunal substituted its own decision that the appeal against the financial penalty succeeded. The appellant was not liable to pay the penalty.
2. The statutory concept of managing property under Housing Act 2004, section 263(3), is not a commonsense concept. It is not established merely by being a party to a management agreement or by doing something capable of being described as management.
3. Section 263(3) required the appellant to be an owner or lessee of the premises, or otherwise to fall within the provision concerning an agent through whom rent or other payments from occupiers were received. There was no evidence or finding that the appellant was an owner or lessee. Nor did the FTT find that the freeholders received rent from the occupiers through the appellant.
4. The appellant received rent from Come to London Limited under an arrangement that made the payment due whether or not the occupiers paid rent. Its indirect benefit from the occupiers’ payments therefore did not satisfy section 263(3).
5. The FTT’s finding that the appellant was a person managing the property was unexplained and could not be explained on the evidence before it. The FTT’s decision on the penalty was also inadequately reasoned. The FTT had to decide the penalty afresh and explain it by reference to the respondent’s enforcement policy; a cursory reference to the respondent’s reasons was insufficient.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): dismissed the appellant’s appeal and confirmed the £10,000 financial penalty.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): allowed the appeal, set aside the FTT’s decision, and substituted a decision allowing the appeal against the penalty.