Jama Ahmed Farrah v Sheffield City Council

Section 17(3) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 permits the First-tier Tribunal to postpone a banning order as a whole until a future date or event. The order must still be framed rationally: commencement should not depend solely on an event that may never occur without a fallback date, and any exception for existing tenancies should identify the properties it covers.

Where an order would require existing tenancies to end, the Tribunal must carefully consider the tenants’ interests. The judgment left open whether the Tribunal has power to require a landlord to evict tenants.

Jama Farrah, a landlord, appealed a First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decision dated 10 September 2025. After he was convicted of two offences against tenants, the FTT imposed a five-year banning order and directed that it would take effect when his current tenancies ended, requiring him to end each tenancy as soon as possible.

Permission to appeal was limited to the terms postponing commencement and requiring the tenancies to end. The appeal raised whether the FTT had power to make those directions and whether it had properly considered the interests of the affected tenants. The banning order itself was not within the permitted appeal.

1. The appeal succeeded in relation to the commencement and tenancy directions. The Tribunal set aside paragraph 2 of the FTT’s order, then set aside the banning order as a whole and substituted a new order.

2. Under section 17(3) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, an exception may apply for some or all of the ban period. The Tribunal held that the FTT could in principle postpone commencement of the whole order until a future date or event. In the absence of postponement, a banning order can take immediate effect despite existing tenancies, as recognised in Knapp v Bristol City Council [2023] UKUT 113 (LC) (para [13]). The Tribunal left open whether the FTT has power to require a landlord to evict tenants; it did not need to decide that question (paras [17]–[18]).

3. Section 16(4)(d) requires the FTT to consider the likely effect of an order on anyone affected by it. Where an order would require existing tenancies to end, the FTT must give express and careful consideration to the tenants’ interests. Merely obtaining tenants’ identities and tenancy agreements was insufficient (paras [19], [24]). The Tribunal also said that, in an appropriate case, affected tenants should have an opportunity to make representations (para [20]). That guidance was prospective. The changed possession framework increased the need for care: section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 was no longer available after 1 May 2026, and Ground 6B in Schedule 2 provided a mandatory possession ground, leaving the possession court no scope to weigh tenants’ interests (para [20]).

4. The FTT’s commencement term was irrational because it depended on all current tenancies ending, an event that might never happen, with no fallback date. It also failed to limit the postponement to the four properties that were already tenanted, leaving a loophole for other lettings (paras [21]–[23]). Requiring the tenancies to end was also an improper exercise of discretion because the FTT had not considered the resulting effect on tenants (para [24]).

5. The substituted order bans Mr Farrah until 10 September 2030. It takes effect immediately except for the four identified properties, where it takes effect on the earlier of 7 November 2026 or the date he ceases to be landlord. The exceptions require appointment of approved managing agents by 7 September 2026 and no face-to-face contact or communication with tenants from 10 September 2025. The Tribunal made the replacement without further tenant evidence to avoid prolonging the proceedings and to provide certainty (paras [25]–[29]).

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): On appeal, set aside the FTT order and substituted a banning order with defined commencement dates and conditions: [2026] UKUT 303 (LC) .
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): On 10 September 2025, imposed a five-year banning order and directed that current tenancies be ended as soon as possible, with the ban commencing when they ended.