Southend-on-Sea City Council v Mr Ruhul Mohammed Shamsuddin: CAM/00KF/HBA/2024/0002 CAM/00KF/HBA/2024/0002

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No CAM/00KF/HBA/2024/0002

Between

Southend-on-Sea City CouncilApplicant

Mr Ruhul Mohammed Shamsuddin Judge David WyattRespondent

Before

Judge David Wyatt

Mr C Gowman BSc MCIEH MCMI

Date 19 June 2024

DECISION

[2]The tribunal has decided to make a banning order, which is attached to this decision notice, against the Respondent in the terms and for the three-year period set out in the order.

REASONS

[1]On 11 December 2023, the tribunal office received an application by the Applicant local housing authority under section 15 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the 2016 Act for a banning order against the Respondent for five years.

[2]The Applicant als o sought provision in such order banning the Respondent from being involved in any body corporate carrying on banned activities. They referred to Lordsons Limited (now named Zenblaze Limited), Lordsons Estates Limited (now named NOPQE Limited) and Conker Property Management Limited (the Companies in particular 2 Banning order offences re. 12 Clifftown Road, Southend

[3]OnOn 1717 MayMay 20232023,, thethe RespondentRespondent (having(having pleadedpleaded notnot guilty)guilty) waswas convictedconvicted inin hishis absenceabsence ofof thethe followingfollowing offencesoffences inin relationrelation toto 1212 ClifftownClifftown Road,Road, SouthendSouthend--onon--SeaSea,, thethe firstfirst underunder sectionsection 72(3)72(3) andand thethe remainderremainder underunder sectionsection 234234 ofof thethe HousingHousing ActAct 20042004 (the(the ““20042004 ActAct”)”):: on on ““oror beforebefore”” 88 DecemberDecember 2021:2021:a. a. failingfailing toto complycomply withwith anan HMOHMO licencelicence conditioncondition byby allowingallowing aa secondsecond--floorfloor roomroom,, wherewhere aa mamaxximumimum ooff twotwo occupantsoccupants werewere permitted,permitted, toto accommodateaccommodate aa familyfamily ofof five;five;

b. b. nonnon--compliancecompliance withwith regulationregulation 33 ofof thethe ManagementManagement ofof HousesHouses inin MultipleMultiple OccupationOccupation (England)(England) RegulationsRegulations 20062006 (the(the ““RegulationsRegulations”)”),, inin thatthat thethe requisiterequisite contactcontact detailsdetails ofof thethe managermanager werewere notnot displayed;displayed;

c. c. nonnon--compliancecompliance withwith RRegulationegulation 7(2)(a),7(2)(a), inin thatthat thethe thirdthird floorfloor balustradebalustrade hadhad missingmissing spindles;spindles;

d. d. nonnon--compliancecompliance withwith RRegulationegulation 7(2)(7(2)(b),b), inin thatthat therethere waswas aa lacklack ofof anan additionaladditional handrailhandrail toto thethe staircasestaircase downdown toto thethe firstfirst floor;floor;

e. e. nonnon--compliancecompliance withwith RRegulationegulation 7(2)(c),7(2)(c), inin thatthat thethe coveringcoveringss onon thethe entranceentrance hallwayhallway,, andand thethe stairsstairs downdown toto andand fromfrom thethe firstfirst floorfloor,, wwereere notnot safelysafely fixedfixed andand inin goodgood repairrepair;; on on 66 JanuaryJanuary 2022:2022:

f. f. nonnon--compliancecompliance withwith RRegulationegulationss 7(2)(d)7(2)(d) andand 4(2)4(2) inin thatthat thethe firefire alarmalarm controlcontrol panelpanel waswas notnot maintainedmaintained inin goodgood workingworking orderorder (this(this waswas treatedtreated asas twotwo separateseparate offences);offences);

g. g. nonnon--compliancecompliance withwith RRegulationegulation 4(2)4(2) inin thatthat thethe alarmalarm (meaning(meaning thethe detector)detector) inin thethe firstfirst floorfloor hhallwayallway waswas notnot maintainedmaintained inin goodgood workingworking order;order; on on 66 JanuaryJanuary 20222022 andand 11 FebruaryFebruary 2022:2022:

h. h. nonnon--compliancecompliance withwith RRegulationegulation 7(1)(c)7(1)(c) inin thatthat thethe passagewaypassageway fromfrom thethe externalexternal staircasestaircase intointo thethe streetstreet waswas notnot clearclear (this(this waswas treatedtreated asas twotwo separateseparate offences,offences, oneone onon eacheach date).date). Bannin Banningg ordeorderr offencesoffences rere.. 9090--90a90a WeWestst Road,Road, WWesestclifftcliff

[4]OnOn 2727 JuneJune 20232023,, thethe RespondentRespondent (having(having changedchanged hishis pleaspleas toto guilty)guilty) waswas convictedconvicted ofof thethe followingfollowing offencesoffences inin relationrelation toto 9090--90a90a WestWest Road,Road, WestcliffWestcliff--onon--SeaSea,, thethe firstfirst underunder sectionsection 7272(1)(1) andand thethe remainderremainder underunder sectionsection 234234 ofof thethe 20042004 ActAct:: 3 between between 11 JulyJuly 20212021 andand 1515 JuneJune 2022:2022:a. a. controlcontrol oror managementmanagement ofof anan HMOHMO whichwhich waswas requiredrequired toto bebe licensedlicensed butbut waswas notnot;; on on 11 AprilApril 2022:2022:

b. b. nonnon--compliancecompliance withwith RegulationRegulation 3,3, inin thatthat thethe requisiterequisite contactcontact detailsdetails ofof thethe managermanager werewere notnot displayed;displayed;

c. c. nonnon--compliancecompliance withwith RegulationRegulation 4(2),4(2), inin thatthat thethe firefire alarmalarm systemsystem waswas notnot maintainedmaintained inin goodgood workingworking order;order;

d. d. nonnon--compliancecompliance withwith RegulationRegulation 4(2),4(2), inin thatthat thethe firefire extinguishersextinguishers werewere notnot maintained,maintained, andand adequateadequate meansmeans ofof escapeescape freefree fromfrom obstructionobstruction waswas providedprovided;; andand

e. e. nonnon--compliancecompliance withwith RRegulationegulation 4(1)(b),4(1)(b), inin thatthat thethe “letting“letting doors”doors” werewere damageddamaged andand inin poorpoor repairrepair inin roomsrooms 22 andand 66.. Procedural Procedural historyhistory

[5]OOnn 1919 FebruaryFebruary 2024,2024, thethe applicationapplication waswas referredreferred toto thethe judiciaryjudiciary.. OnOn 2020 FebruaryFebruary 20242024,, aa proceduralprocedural JudgeJudge gavegave casecase managementmanagement directions.directions. PursuantPursuant toto thosethose directions,directions, thethe ApplicantApplicant producedproduced aa bundlebundle ofof theirtheir casecase documents.documents. TheThe RespondentRespondent failedfailed toto complycomply withwith thethe directions,directions, whichwhich requiredrequired productionproduction byby 55 AprilApril 20242024 ofof aa bundlebundle ofof thethe casecase documentsdocuments hehe wishedwished toto relrelyy upon.upon.

[6]AtAt thethe hearihearingng byby videovideo onon 3030 MayMay 2024,2024, thethe ApplicantApplicant waswas representedrepresented byby MsMs KarolinaKarolina ZielinZielinskaska ofof counselcounsel.. PaulPaul OattOatt andand JasmineJasmine ZawadzkiZawadzki,, bothboth rregulatoryegulatory servicesservices officerofficerss employedemployed byby thethe Applicant,Applicant, attendedattended toto givegive evidence.evidence. TheThe RespondentRespondent attendedattended andand representedrepresented himselfhimself.. Initial Initial conditions/considerationsconditions/considerations

[7]TheThe offencesoffences describeddescribed aboveabove areare allall designateddesignated ‘‘banningbanning orderorder offencesoffences’’,, soso sectionsection 15(1)15(1) ofof thethe 20162016 ActAct isis satisfied.satisfied. ItIt waswas notnot disputeddisputed thatthat thethe ApplicantApplicant hadhad compliedcomplied withwith thethe prepre--applicationapplication procedureprocedure requiredrequired byby sectionsection 15(3)15(3).. OnOn 1111 SeptemberSeptember 2023,2023, thetheyy sentsent noticenotice toto thethe RespondentRespondent thatthat theythey intendedintended toto applyapply forfor aa banningbanning orderorder againstagainst himhim andand explainedexplained whywhy.. TheyThey warnedwarned thisthis couldcould preventprevent himhim fromfrom lettingletting housinghousing inin England,England, engagingengaging inin EnglishEnglish lettingletting agencyagency workwork andand engagingengaging inin EnglishEnglish propertyproperty managementmanagement work.work. TheyThey detaileddetailed thethe relevantrelevant offencesoffences andand otherother allegedalleged offencesoffences.. TheyThey warnedwarned theythey werewere seekingseeking aa banningbanning orderorder toto lastlast forfor fivefive years.years. TheTheirir noticenotice waswas givengiven withinwithin sixsix monthsmonths ofof thethe relevantrelevant convictionsconvictions andand thetheyy gavegave himhim 2828 daysdays inin whichwhich toto makemake representations.representations. NNoo representationsrepresentations werewere mademade duringduring thethe 2828--dayday periodperiod.. TheThe ApplicantApplicant waitedwaited untiluntil afterafter ththatat periodperiod hadhad endedended beforebefore makingmaking theirtheir applicationapplication toto thethe tribunaltribunal onon 1111 DecemDecemberber 20232023.. 4

[8]Generally,Generally, tthehe tribunaltribunal cancan onlyonly makemake aa banningbanning orderorder againstagainst aa personperson whowho waswas aa ‘‘residentialresidential landlordlandlord’’ (defined(defined inin s.s.5555 ofof thethe 20162016 ActAct)) oror propertyproperty agentagent (defined(defined inin s.56)s.56) atat thethe timetime theythey committedcommitted thethe banningbanning orderorder offenceoffence (s.16(1)(b))(s.16(1)(b)).. WWherehere aa banningbanning orderorder applicationapplication isis mademade againstagainst anan officerofficer ofof aa bodybody corporatecorporate,, thethe tribunaltribunal maymay makemake aa banningbanning orderorder againstagainst thatthat officerofficer eveneven ifif thatthat conditioncondition isis notnot metmet (s.1(s.166(3)).(3)). TheThe relevantrelevant bodiesbodies corporatecorporate inin thisthis casecase areare summarisedsummarised belobelow.w.

[9]LordsonsLordsons LimitedLimited waswas incorporatedincorporated inin 20172017,, describingdescribing itsits businessbusiness asas:: ““otherother lettingletting andand operatingoperating ofof ownown oror leasedleased realreal estateestate”.”. TheThe RespondentRespondent (who(who waswas bornborn inin 191982)82) isis thethe solesole directordirector andand shareholder.shareholder. AfterAfter 2222 JanuaryJanuary 2024,2024, thethe namename ofof thethe companycompany waswas changedchanged toto ZenblazeZenblaze Limited.Limited.

[10]ConkerConker PropertyProperty ManagementManagement LimitedLimited waswas incorporatedincorporated inin 20192019,, describingdescribing itsits businessbusiness asas:: ““realreal estateestate agenciesagencies”.”. ApartApart fromfrom oneone dirdirectorector whowho waswas appointedappointed inin 20202020 andand thenthen resignedresigned twotwo daysdays later,later, thethe RespondentRespondent hashas beenbeen thethe solesole director,director, andand appearsappears toto bebe thethe solesole shareholder.shareholder.

[11]LordsonsLordsons EstatesEstates LimitedLimited waswas incorporatedincorporated inin 20202020 describingdescribing itsits businessbusiness asas:: ““realreal estateestate agenciesagencies”.”. TheThe RespondentRespondent isis thethe solesole directordirector andand shareholder.shareholder. EE--mailmail correspondencecorrespondence frofromm thethe RespondentRespondent inin 20212021 andand ZeenatZeenat ShamShamssuddinuddin inin 20222022 indicatesindicates thisthis waswas thethe companycompany thenthen tradingtrading asas LordsonsLordsons estateestate agentsagents (“(“LordsonsLordsons EstatesEstates LimitedLimited T/AST/AS LLordsonsordsons”)”) fromfrom 1414 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad.. AfterAfter 2222 JanuaryJanuary 2024,2024, thethe namename ofof thethe companycompany waswas changedchanged toto NOPQENOPQE Limited.Limited.

[12]ThThoosese threethree CompaniesCompanies areare eacheach currentlycurrently subjectsubject toto proposedproposed administrativeadministrative strikestrike--offoff becausebecause documentsdocuments areare overdue.overdue. LordsonsLordsons EstateEstate AgentsAgents stillstill appearappear ttoo bebe tradingtrading fromfrom 1414 ClifftownClifftown Road,Road, butbut thisthis nownow appearsappears ((fromfrom moremore recentrecent ee--mailmail correspondencecorrespondence)) toto bebe aa tradingtrading namename usedused byby ChapterChapter 7777 Limited,Limited, aa companycompany incorporatedincorporated inin DecemberDecember 20222022 describingdescribing itsits businessbusiness asas:: ““otherother lettingletting andand operatingoperating ofof ownown oror leasedleased realreal estateestate”.”. TheThe RespondentRespondent waswas thethe solesole directordirector untiluntil 1919 MayMay 2023,2023, whenwhen hehe resignedresigned.. HeHe waswas replacedreplaced byby ZeenatZeenat Shamsuddin,Shamsuddin, whowho waswas bornborn inin 1983,1983, toto whomwhom itit appearsappears hehe transferredtransferred hishis share(s)share(s) inin thethe company.company.

[13]TThehe RespondenRespondentt waswas aa residentialresidential landlordlandlord (as(as defined)defined) atat leastleast inin respectrespect ofof somesome ofof thethe roomsrooms atat 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad (being(being thethe landlordlandlord namednamed inin thethe tenancytenancy agreementsagreements withwith occupiersoccupiers,, andand thethe holderholder ofof thethe leaselease fromfrom thethe freeholder,freeholder, asas describeddescribed below)below),, asas waswas LordsonsLordsons EstatesEstates Limited,Limited, aa companycompany ofof whichwhich hehe waswas aa director,director, inin respectrespect ofof atat leastleast oneone otherother.. Similarly,Similarly, LordsonsLordsons LimitedLimited and/orand/or ConkerConker PropertyProperty ManagementManagement LimiLimitedted,, compancompaniesies ofof whichwhich thethe RespondentRespondent waswas aa director,director, werewere aa residentialresidential landlordlandlord atat leastleast inin respectrespect ofof somesome ofof thethe roomsrooms atat 9090--9090aa WestWest RoadRoad (being(being respectivelyrespectively thethe landlordlandlord namednamed inin tenancytenancy agreementsagreements withwith thethe occupiersoccupiers andand thethe tenanttenant underunder thethe leaselease fromfrom thethe freeholder,freeholder, asas describeddescribed belowbelow)).. NNoneone ofof thesethese mattersmatters werewere disputed.disputed. 5

[14]Accordingly,Accordingly, thethe conditioncondition inin s.16(1)(b)s.16(1)(b) isis satisfiedsatisfied atat leastleast inin relationrelation toto 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad andand therethere isis nono needneed forfor itit toto bebe satisfisatisfieded inin relationrelation toto 9090--90a90a WestWest Road.Road. EEvenven ifif aa bodybody corporatecorporate ofof whichwhich thethe RespondentRespondent wawass aa directordirector woulwouldd forfor thethe purposespurposes ofof s.16s.16(3)(3) needneed toto bebe aa residentialresidential landlordlandlord atat thethe timetime thethe relevantrelevant offencesoffences werewere committedcommitted,, wewe areare satisfiedsatisfied thatthat atat leastleast oneone ofof themthem waswas..

[15]TheThe nonnon--statutorystatutory guidanceguidance “Banning“Banning OrderOrder OffencesOffences underunder thethe HousingHousing andand PlanningPlanning ActAct 2016”2016” sayssays (at(at 3.43.4)):: ““AA spentspent convictionconviction shouldshould notnot bebe takentaken intointo accountaccount whenwhen determiningdetermining whetherwhether toto applyapply forfor oror makemake aa banningbanning orderorder.”.” ByBy sectionssections 11 andand 55 ofof thethe RehabilitationRehabilitation ofof OffendersOffenders ActAct 19741974 (the(the ““19741974 ActAct”),”), wherewhere anan ““individualindividual”” hashas beenbeen convictedconvicted ofof anan offence,offence, thethe rehabilitationrehabilitation periodperiod ((forfor thethe sentencessentences imposedimposed inin thisthis casecase)) isis thethe endend ofof thethe periodperiod ofof 1212 months:months: “…“…beginningbeginning withwith thethe datedate ofof thethe convictionconviction inin respectrespect ofof whichwhich thethe sentencesentence isis imposedimposed”.”. BByy sectionsection 77(3),(3), ifif aa judicialjudicial authorauthorityity isis:: “…“…satisfied,satisfied, inin thethe lightlight ofof anyany considerationsconsiderations whichwhich appearappear toto itit toto bebe relevantrelevant …… thatthat justicejustice cannotcannot bebe donedone inin thethe casecase exceptexcept byby admittingadmitting oror requiringrequiring evidenceevidence relatingrelating toto aa person’sperson’s spentspent convictionsconvictions oror toto circumstancescircumstances ancillaryancillary theretothereto””,, thatthat authorityauthority maymay admitadmit ththatat evidenceevidence..

[16]IInn HussainHussain vv LondonLondon BoroughBorough ofof NewhamNewham [2023][2023] UKUTUKUT 287287 (LC),(LC), thethe UpperUpper TribunalTribunal confirmedconfirmed thatthat,, notwithstandingnotwithstanding thethe guidanceguidance,, thethe words:words: ““hashas beenbeen convictedconvicted ofof aa banningbanning orderorder offenceoffence”” inin sectionssections 15(1)15(1) andand 16(1)16(1) ofof thethe 20162016 ActAct dodo notnot referrefer onlyonly toto convictionsconvictions whichwhich areare notnot spent.spent. TheThe efeffectfect ofof thethe 19741974 ActAct isis that:that: “…“…evidenceevidence ofof spentspent convictionsconvictions willwill bebe inadmissible,inadmissible, unlessunless thethe FTTFTT isis persuaded,persuaded, pursuantpursuant toto sectionsection 7(3),7(3), thatthat “justice“justice cannotcannot bebe done”done” exceptexcept byby admittingadmitting thatthat evidenceevidence.”.” [32].[32]. InIn consideringconsidering that,that, thethe UpperUpper TribunalTribunal confconfirmed,irmed, itit isis rightright notnot toto focusfocus onon personalpersonal circumstancescircumstances butbut onon whetherwhether thethe tribunaltribunal couldcould dodo itsits jobjob atat allall inin thethe absenceabsence ofof thethe evidenceevidence.. InIn thatthat casecase:: ““ForFor justicejustice toto bebe done,done, thethe FTTFTT hadhad toto atat leastleast looklook atat thethe evidence.evidence. ThatThat diddid notnot meanmean thatthat itit wawass necessarilynecessarily goinggoing toto makemake aa banningbanning order;order; itit waswas simplysimply thatthat considerationconsideration ofof thethe locallocal housinghousing authority’sauthority’s applicationapplication couldcould notnot getget offoff thethe groundground unlessunless evidenceevidence ofof thethe spentspent convictionsconvictions waswas admittedadmitted.”.”

[17]WWhilehile thethe convictionsconvictions werewere notnot spentspent whenwhen thethe banningbanning orderorder applicationapplication waswas made,made, thethe rehabilitationrehabilitation periodperiod inin respectrespect ofof allall thethe offencesoffences relatingrelating toto 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad expiredexpired shortlyshortly beforebefore thethe hearinghearing.. ThThoseose convictionsconvictions areare nownow treatedtreated asas spentspent andand generallygenerally nono evidenceevidence wouldwould bebe admissibleadmissible toto proveprove thatthat thethe offencesoffences werewere committedcommitted etcetc (sections(sections 11 andand 44 ofof thethe 19741974 ActAct,, respectivelyrespectively).). TheThe RespondentRespondent confirmedconfirmed hehe hadhad nono objectionobjection toto usus takingtaking intointo accountaccount allall thethe convictionsconvictions andand evidenceevidence reliedrelied upon.upon. WeWe areare satisfiedsatisfied thatthat justicejustice cannotcannot bebe donedone unlessunless wewe dodo so.so. TheThe applicationapplication waswas mademade promptly,promptly, inin DecemberDecember 20232023.. TThehe spspentent convictionsconvictions,, fromfrom MayMay 20232023,, relaterelate toto conductconduct fromfrom latelate 20212021 upup toto FebruaryFebruary 20222022,, becamebecame spentspent onlyonly twotwo weeksweeks beforebefore thethe hearinghearing inin MayMay 20242024,, andand areare saidsaid toto indicateindicate aa patternpattern ofof behaviourbehaviour.. TheThe otherother conconvictionsvictions,, relatingrelating toto 9090--90a90a WestWest RoaRoad,d, areare unspent;unspent; ththeireir rehabirehabilitationlitation periodperiod expiexpiresres laterlater inin JuneJune 2024.2024. 6 General General lawlaw

[18]InIn KnappKnapp vv BristolBristol CityCity CouncilCouncil [2023][2023] UKUTUKUT 118118 (LC),(LC), thethe DeputyDeputy ChamberChamber PresidentPresident describedescribedd thethe relevantrelevant statutorystatutory provisionsprovisions andand nonnon--statutorystatutory guidanceguidance inin relationrelation toto banningbanning orders,orders, atat [15[15--29]29] andand [30[30--33]33]..

[19]TheThe effecteffect ofof aa fullfull banningbanning orderorder isis severe,severe, preventingpreventing aa personperson fromfrom lawfullylawfully lettingletting housinghousing oror engagingengaging inin lelettingtting agencyagency oror propertyproperty managementmanagement workwork inin England,England, oror beingbeing involvedinvolved inin anyany bodybody corporatecorporate thatthat carriescarries outout anyany suchsuch activityactivity.. AllAll thosethose expressionsexpressions areare defineddefined widelywidely inin thethe 20162016 Act.Act. BreachBreach ofof aa banningbanning orderorder isis aa criminalcriminal offenceoffence forfor whichwhich anan offenderoffender iiss liableliable toto imprisonmentimprisonment and/and/oror fines,fines, oror maymay resultresult inin aa substantialsubstantial financialfinancial penalty.penalty. ByBy sectionsection 2929 ofof thethe 20162016 Act,Act, aa locallocal housinghousing authorityauthority mustmust alsoalso enterenter inin thethe roguerogue landlordlandlord databasedatabase thethe namename ofof anyany personperson againstagainst whomwhom aa banningbanning orderorder isis made,made, iiff theythey havehave notnot alreadyalready enteredentered themthem onon thethe databasedatabase inin respectrespect ofof thethe relevantrelevant banningbanning orderorder offence(s).offence(s). InIn lineline withwith allall this,this, tthehe nonnon--statutorystatutory guidanceguidance statesstates (at(at 1.7)1.7) thatthat banningbanning ordersorders areare aimedaimed at:at: ““RogueRogue landlordslandlords whowho floutflout theirtheir legallegal obligationobligationss andand rentrent outout accommodationaccommodation whichwhich isis substandard.substandard. WeWe expectexpect banningbanning ordersorders toto bebe usedused forfor thethe mostmost seriousserious offendersoffenders”.”. MrMr OattOatt confirmedconfirmed thatthat thethe ApplicantApplicant hadhad notnot yetyet developeddeveloped theirtheir ownown policypolicy inin relationrelation toto banningbanning ordersorders atat thethe relevantrelevant time.time.

[20]SectionSection 16(4)16(4) requiresrequires thethe tribunaltribunal toto consider:consider: (a)(a) thethe seriousnessseriousness ofof thethe offenceoffence(s)(s);; (b)(b) anyany previousprevious convictionsconvictions forfor aa banningbanning orderorder offence;offence; (c)(c) whetherwhether thethe personperson hashas aatt anyany previousprevious timetime beenbeen includedincluded inin thethe databasedatabase ofof roguerogue landlordslandlords andand propertyproperty agents;agents; andand (d)(d) thethe likelylikely effecteffect ofof thethe banningbanning orderorder onon thethemm andand anyoneanyone elseelse whowho maymay bebe affectedaffected byby thethe order.order. MsMs ZielinskaZielinska saidsaid,, itit waswas notnot disputeddisputed andand wewe notenote itit waswas agreedagreed byby thethe partiesparties inin KnappKnapp [23][23] thatthat thesethese areare notnot thethe onlyonly mattersmatters whichwhich maymay bebe takentaken intointo account.account. 12 12 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad

[21]1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad isis subjectsubject toto aa leaselease fromfrom 20072007 whichwhich ““RahulRahul ShamsuddinShamsuddin”” acquiredacquired onon 2626 MarchMarch 20152015 forfor £1.£1. ThisThis expiresexpires onon 88 MarchMarch 2027.2027. InIn AugustAugust 2015,2015, tthehe freeholdfreehold titletitle waswas acacquiredquired byby aann unconnectedunconnected person,person, MsMs Goldsmith.Goldsmith. InIn 2017,2017, thethe RespondentRespondent appliedapplied toto thethe ApplicantApplicant inin hishis ownown namename forfor anan HMOHMO licence,licence, payingpaying £900£900.. InIn hishis applicationapplication form,form, hehe indicatedindicated thatthat hehe waswas thethe freeholderfreeholder.. HeHe diddid notnot disclosedisclose thethe mortgagemortgage onon thethe freeholdfreehold title,title, leleftft blankblank thethe detailsdetails forfor anyany leaseholderleaseholder andand leleftft blankblank thethe sectionsection askingasking forfor detailsdetails ofof anyany otherother personperson whowho mightmight bebe interestedinterested inin thethe applicationapplication.. AnAn HMOHMO licencelicence waswas grantedgranted inin hishis namename permpermittingitting upup toto eighteight occupiers.occupiers. HeHe waswas thethe councilcouncil taxtax payer.payer.

[22]OnOn 2525 NovemberNovember 2021,2021, MrMr OattOatt wrotewrote toto thethe RespondentRespondent aboutabout allegationsallegations fromfrom aa tenanttenant ofof 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad thatthat afterafter complainingcomplaining aboutabout disrepairdisrepair hehe hadhad beenbeen threatenedthreatened andand attackedattacked byby “Mihai”“Mihai” andand otherother peoplepeople fromfrom “Lawsons”“Lawsons” attemptingattempting toto evict/harassevict/harass him.him. OnOn 2626 NovemberNovember 2021,2021, thethe RespondentRespondent replied,replied, disputingdisputing whatwhat hadhad beenbeen saidsaid.. MrMr OattOatt rereppliedlied thatthat 7 he he waswas perfectlyperfectly willingwilling toto hearhear whatwhat thethe RespondentRespondent saidsaid hadhad happened.happened. ItIt appearsappears ththereere waswas nono answeranswer toto thisthis..

[23]OnOn 88 DecemberDecember 2021,2021, MrMr OattOatt inspectedinspected 1212 ClifftownClifftown Road.Road. HeHe describeddescribed itit asas aa terracedterraced propertyproperty,, withwith aa burgerburger shop/restaurantshop/restaurant onon thethe groundground floor.floor. TheThe areasareas whichwhich werewere usedused forfor residentialresidential purposespurposes areare onon thethe firstfirst andand secondsecond floors,floors, withwith additionaladditional roomsrooms onon thethe thirdthird floorfloor (described(described asas thethe atticattic)),, allall accessedaccessed usingusing aa metalmetal externalexternal staircasestaircase atat thethe rearrear.. LordsonsLordsons estateestate agents,agents, atat 1414 ClifftownClifftown Road,Road, areare nextnext doordoor butbut one.one. AnAn occupieroccupier toldtold MrMr OattOatt thatthat therethere werewere 1010 peoplepeople livingliving inin thethe property;property; himselfhimself andand hishis brotherbrother (from(from Bulgaria)Bulgaria) andand twotwo familiesfamilies fromfrom RomaniaRomania.. HHee paidpaid hishis rentrent toto “Mihai”“Mihai” inin thethe LordsonsLordsons officeoffice.. AnotherAnother,, thethe tenanttenant ofof aa roomroom onon thethe secondsecond floorfloor,, producedproduced aa tenancytenancy agreementagreement whichwhich identifiesidentifies thethe landlordlandlord simplysimply asas “Lordsons”“Lordsons” andand providesprovides forfor aa monthlymonthly rentrent ofof £500£500 andand depositdeposit ofof £500£500 withwith nono apparentapparent depositdeposit protectionprotection.. ThatThat tenanttenant livedlived inin thatthat roomroom withwith herher husbandhusband andand threethree childrenchildren ((allall underunder thethe ageage ofof fivefive)).. MrMr OattOatt measuredmeasured thethe roomroom atat 11.89m211.89m2 andand notednoted thatthat thethe EssexEssex HMOHMO amenityamenity standardsstandards wouldwould allowallow occupationoccupation byby aa maximummaximum ofof twotwo peoplepeople ((eveneven apartapart fromfrom thethe maximummaximum permittedpermitted occupiersoccupiers inin thethe HMOHMO licencelicence andand thethe specificspecific limitlimit inin thethe HMOHMO licencelicence ofof nono moremore thanthan twotwo occupiersoccupiers forfor thatthat roomroom)).. MrMr OattOatt foundfound thatthat allall threethree roomsrooms inin thethe atticattic werewere tootoo smallsmall toto bebe occupied.occupied.

[24]LaterLater thatthat day,day, MrMr OattOatt sentsent aa noticenotice toto thethe freeholderfreeholder requiringrequiring information.information. TheThe frfreeholdereeholder respondedresponded promptly,promptly, sayingsaying thethe RespondentRespondent waswas thethe tenanttenant throughthrough herher agent,agent, Sorrells,Sorrells, andand asas farfar asas sheshe waswas awareaware hehe shouldshould bebe usingusing thethe propertyproperty asas aa restaurant,restaurant, notnot anan HMO.HMO. SheShe expressedexpressed concern,concern, askingasking howhow thethe HMOHMO licencelicence hadhad beenbeen grantedgranted whenwhen sheshe hadhad notnot beenbeen consulted.consulted. TheThe leaselease heldheld byby thethe RespondentRespondent demisesdemises thethe entireentire buildingbuilding.. ItIt permitpermitss useuse ofof thethe basement,basement, groundground andand firstfirst floorsfloors asas aa restaurantrestaurant,, withwith staffstaff accommodationaccommodation aboveabove.. ItIt prohibitprohibitss anyany underlettingunderletting ofof partpart andand anyany underlettingunderletting ofof wholewhole oror changechange ofof useuse withoutwithout permissionpermission.. RentRent statementsstatements werewere producedproduced showingshowing arrearsarrears owedowed toto thethe freeholderfreeholder..

[25]InIn responseresponse toto aa similarsimilar requestrequest forfor information,information, thethe RespondentRespondent producedproduced documentsdocuments includingincluding aa spreadsheetspreadsheet ofof rentsrents fromfrom occupiersoccupiers namingnaming “Lordsons”“Lordsons” asas ownerowner,, andand copycopy tenancy/licencetenancy/licence agreements.agreements. MostMost ofof thethe “room“room rental”rental” agreementsagreements namednamed thethe RespondentRespondent (“Ruhul(“Ruhul Shamsuddin”)Shamsuddin”) asas thethe landlordlandlord.. OOnene showedshowed “Lordsons”“Lordsons” asas landlordlandlord.. AsAs notednoted above,above, “Lordsons”“Lordsons” waswas atat thethe timetime aa tradingtrading namename usedused byby LordsonsLordsons EstatesEstates Limited.Limited.

[26]TheThe ApplicantApplicant arrangedarranged aa moremore detaileddetailed inspection,inspection, givinggiving noticenotice onon 44 JanuaryJanuary 20222022,, forfor 66 JanuaryJanuary 2022.2022. TheThe RespondentRespondent telephonedtelephoned MrMr OattOatt andand said,said, amongstamongst otherother things,things, thatthat contractorscontractors wouldwould bebe onon sitesite then,then, carryingcarrying outout work.work. OnOn inspection,inspection, therethere werewere nono contractorscontractors onon sitesite andand nono workwork waswas beingbeing carriedcarried out.out. AA rangerange ofof problems,problems, includingincluding disrepairdisrepair andand inadequateinadequate heatingheating werewere notednoted,, asas consideredconsidered belowbelow.. OneOne ofof thethe conditionsconditions inin thethe HMOHMO licencelicence fromfrom 20172017 hadhad requiredrequired thatthat defectivedefective 8 windows windows inin roomroom 44 andand thethe kitchenkitchen bebe repaired,repaired, overhauledoverhauled oror replacedreplaced byby 2828 FebruaryFebruary 20182018.. TThathat hadhad notnot beenbeen done.done.

[27]OnOn 1212 JanuaryJanuary 2022,2022, thethe ApplicantApplicant gavegave noticenotice (dated(dated 44 JanuaryJanuary 2022)2022) ofof proposedproposed revocationrevocation ofof thethe HMOHMO licencelicence,, andand wrotewrote toto thethe RespondentRespondent aboutabout whatwhat hadhad beenbeen foundfound onon inspecinspectiontion.. TheyThey warnedwarned thatthat theythey intendedintended toto serveserve anan improvementimprovement noticenotice andand aa prohibitionprohibition orderorder forfor partpart,, givinggiving 1414 daysdays forfor representations.representations. OnOn 2828 JanuaryJanuary 2022,2022, ZeenatZeenat ShamsuddinShamsuddin contactedcontacted MrMr OattOatt toto askask aboutabout thethe scopescope ofof worksworks,, sayingsaying worksworks hadhad beenbeen carriedcarried outout.. SheShe alsoalso saidsaid thatthat thethe propertyproperty waswas nonoww emptyempty;; allall thethe tenantstenants hadhad gone.gone. MrMr OattOatt askedasked ifif theythey hadhad beenbeen rehousedrehoused.. HeHe waswas toldtold thethe tenantstenants werewere allall gonegone,, theythey neededneeded toto emptyempty thethe propertyproperty becausebecause ofof hishis notice,notice, andand thethe wallswalls formingforming thethe undersizedundersized roroomomss onon thethe thirdthird floorfloor hadhad beenbeen knockedknocked throughthrough toto avoidavoid thethe needneed forfor aa prohibitionprohibition order.order.

[28]MrMr OattOatt arrangedarranged toto rere--inspectinspect onon 11 FebruaryFebruary 2022.2022. HeHe waswas askedasked toto delaydelay thisthis untiluntil thethe endend ofof thatthat week.week. OnOn 11 FebruaryFebruary 2022,2022, hhee inspectedinspected externallyexternally andand metmet thethe tenanttenant ofof thethe upperupper floorfloor frontfront roomroom.. SheShe confirmedconfirmed thatthat sheshe andand herher familyfamily werewere stillstill livingliving atat thethe propertyproperty;; allall thethe otherother occupiersoccupiers hadhad left.left. HeHe foundfound somesome worksworks (such(such asas clearingclearing guttersgutters andand dealingdealing withwith faultsfaults displayeddisplayed onon thethe firefire alarmalarm systemsystem andand alarmalarm detectorsdetectors coveredcovered withwith foil)foil) hadhad beenbeen carriedcarried out,out, butbut mostmost hadhad not.not.

[29]Accordingly,Accordingly, onon 11 FebruaryFebruary 20222022,, MrMr OattOatt servedserved anan improvementimprovement noticenotice,, requiringrequiring thethe RespondentRespondent andand ““LordsonsLordsons”” toto withinwithin twotwo monthsmonths fromfrom 33 MarchMarch 20222022 carrycarry outout specifiedspecified worksworks.. TheseThese includincludeded renewalrenewal ofof woodwood--framedframed singlesingle glazedglazed windows,windows, removremovalal ofof anan accumulationaccumulation ofof refuserefuse aroundaround thethe externalexternal stairs,stairs, proviprovisionsion ofof anan adequateadequate gasgas oror electricelectric heatingheating systemsystem (only(only aa sisinglengle fixedfixed electricelectric heaterheater inin oneone room,room, andand portableportable electricelectric heatersheaters elsewhere,elsewhere, hadhad beenbeen provided,provided, withwith thethe boilerboiler providingproviding onlyonly hothot water)water),, andand remediationremediation ofof wallswalls andand ceilingceiling areasareas affectedaffected byby dampdamp.. InIn viewview ofof thethe workwork whichwhich hadhad beenbeen carriedcarried out,out, hehe decideddecided notnot toto serveserve aa prohibitionprohibition orderorder,, butbut expressedexpressed concernconcern aboutabout roofroof supportsupport followingfollowing removalremoval ofof thethe thirdthird floorfloor wallswalls..

[30]OnOn 1111 FebruaryFebruary 2022,2022, thethe ApplicantApplicant revokedrevoked thethe HMOHMO licencelicence.. TheyThey alsoalso wrotewrote toto thethe RespondentRespondent notingnoting allegationsallegations thatthat occupiersoccupiers hadhad beenbeen threatenedthreatened withwith evictioneviction,, wwarningarning againagain aboutabout thethe offenceoffence ofof unlawfulunlawful evictioneviction.. TheThe remainingremaining tenanttenant hadhad beenbeen rere--housedhoused byby thethe Applicant,Applicant, afterafter allegingalleging thatthat thethe landlordslandlords hadhad changedchanged thethe lockslocks.. ThatThat waswas disputeddisputed byby thethe Respondent,Respondent, whowho saidsaid thethe tenantstenants hadhad abandonedabandoned thethe property.property. MrMr OattOatt confirmedconfirmed thatthat ultimatelyultimately thethe viewview hadhad beenbeen takentaken thatthat thethe ApplicantApplicant diddid notnot havehave sufficientsufficient evidenceevidence ofof unlawfulunlawful evictioneviction toto prosecuteprosecute,, andand diddid notnot relyrely onon thisthis inin rrelationelation toto thethe banningbanning orderorder application.application. OnOn 1717 MarchMarch 2022,2022, MrMr OattOatt andand thethe RespondentRespondent metmet onon sitesite withwith thethe freeholder’sfreeholder’s agent.agent. MrMr OattOatt sawsaw thatthat thethe propertyproperty waswas nownow empty.empty.

[31]OnOn 3030 DecemberDecember 2022,2022, referringreferring toto earlierearlier correspondencecorrespondence aboutabout failurefailure toto carrycarry outout thethe worksworks requiredrequired byby thethe improvementimprovement noticenotice ofof 11 FebruaryFebruary 20220222 andand confirmationconfirmation thatthat thethe propertyproperty remainedremained empty,empty, thethe ApplicantApplicant 9 served served aa prohibitionprohibition orderorder.. ThisThis prohibitprohibitss useuse ofof thethe first,first, secondsecond andand thirdthird floorsfloors forfor residentialresidential accommodation.accommodation. OnOn 2121 FebruaryFebruary 2023,2023, thethe improvementimprovement noticenotice waswas revokedrevoked.. ThThee relevantrelevant noticenotice confirmconfirmeded thethe specifiedspecified worksworks hadhad notnot beenbeen carriedcarried outout,, butbut thethe improvementimprovement noticenotice waswas beingbeing revokedrevoked becausebecause itit hadhad beenbeen supersededsuperseded byby thethe prohibitionprohibition orderorder (which(which setssets outout essentiallyessentially thethe samesame worksworks,, whichwhich mustmust bebe carriedcarried outout beforebefore thethe propertyproperty cancan bebe usedused forfor residentialresidential accommodation)accommodation)..

[32]TheThe RespondentRespondent andand LordsonsLordsons EstatesEstates LimitedLimited werewere prosecutedprosecuted forfor thethe offencesoffences summarisedsummarised aboveabove asas personspersons managingmanaging ((oror thethe licencelicence holder,holder, inin thethe casecase ofof thethe licensinglicensing offence)offence).. AtAt aa preliminarypreliminary hearinghearing onon 1414 OctoberOctober 2022,2022, thethe RespondentRespondent pleadedpleaded notnot guiltyguilty toto allall ofof thethe charges.charges. OtherOther chargescharges werewere dropped.dropped. TheThe trialtrial waswas fixedfixed forfor 1717 andand 1818 MayMay 20232023 atat ColchesterColchester MagistratesMagistrates CourtCourt,, butbut onlyonly oneone dayday waswas neededneeded becausebecause thethe RespondeRespondentnt diddid notnot attendattend andand waswas foundfound guiltyguilty ofof thethe 1010 banningbanning orderorder offencesoffences summarisedsummarised aboveabove relatingrelating toto 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad.. TheThe ApplicantApplicant said,said, andand itit waswas notnot disputed,disputed, thatthat LordsonsLordsons EstatesEstates LimitedLimited werewere alsoalso foundfound guiltyguilty ofof ninenine ofof thosethose offences.offences.

[33]TheThe RespondentRespondent attendedattended thethe sentencingsentencing hearinghearing onon 77 JulyJuly 2023,2023, whenwhen BasildonBasildon MagistratesMagistrates CourtCourt werewere saidsaid toto havehave imposedimposed totaltotal “fines”“fines” ofof £17,291£17,291 includingincluding costscosts andand victimvictim surchsurcharge.arge. WhenWhen wewe asked,asked, tthehe ApplicantApplicant confirmedconfirmed thethe actualactual finefine imposedimposed onon thethe RespondentRespondent waswas £2,344£2,344 plusplus aa victimvictim surchargesurcharge ofof £190£190 andand costscosts ofof £6,112.50£6,112.50.. TheyThey toldtold usus thatthat thethe samesame amountsamounts againagain werewere imposedimposed onon LordsonsLordsons EstatesEstates LimitedLimited,, whichwhich indicatesindicates totaltotal finesfines ofof £4,688£4,688 forfor thethe relevantrelevant offences.offences. 90 90--90a90a WestWest RoadRoad

[34]OnOn 2525 MarchMarch 2022,2022, MsMs ZawadzkiZawadzki waswas dealingdealing withwith anan outstandingoutstanding HMOHMO licencelicence applicationapplication mademade forfor thisthis propertyproperty inin 2020.2020. TheThe applicant’sapplicant’s representativerepresentative thenthen contactedcontacted herher,, explainingexplaining thatthat thethe propertyproperty hadhad beenbeen soldsold inin 20212021 asas anan HMOHMO withwith tenantstenants inin situsitu andand theythey believedbelieved thethe propertyproperty waswas beingbeing managedmanaged byby LordsonsLordsons EstateEstate Agents.Agents. TThehe freeholdfreehold titletitle waswas purchasedpurchased onon 2323 JuneJune 20212021 byby ValentineValentine LodgeLodge Ltd,Ltd, whowhosese directorsdirectors werewere MrMr andand MrsMrs Sanghera.Sanghera.

[35]OnOn 11 AprilApril 2022,2022, MsMs ZawadzkiZawadzki mademade anan unannouncedunannounced visitvisit withwith herher colleague,colleague, AshishAshish Shinde.Shinde. SheShe saidsaid thethe propertyproperty hashas threethree floors,floors, withwith 1010 lettingletting roomsrooms andand oneone selfself--containedcontained flatflat accessedaccessed atat thethe side.side. TTheyhey foundfound 1122 adultsadults andand fivefive childrenchildren inin occupationoccupation ofof sseveneven ofof thethe rooms,rooms, andand nono answeranswer fromfrom thethe otherother roomsrooms,, atat thethe timetime.. OccupiersOccupiers confirmedconfirmed thethe propertyproperty hadhad beenbeen takentaken overover byby ““LordsonsLordsons”” inin 20212021.. TheThe tenanttenant ofof roomroom 66 producedproduced hishis tenancytenancy agreementagreement,, whichwhich namesnames thethe landlordlandlord asas ““LordsonsLordsons LimitedLimited”.”. TheThe frontfront pagepage ofof thethe copycopy HMOHMO licencelicence displayeddisplayed inin thethe hallwayhallway isis forfor thethe previousprevious ownerowner andand makesmakes itit clearclear thatthat itit expiredexpired inin 20192019 andand thethe maximummaximum numbernumber ofof personspersons permittedpermitted inin thethe househouse wawass 1515..

[36]OnOn 55 AprilApril 20222022 atat 3pm3pm,, thethe samesame officersofficers rere--inspectedinspected onon noticenotice (given(given thethe previousprevious day)day) toto LordsonsLordsons LimitedLimited andand ValentineValentine LodgeLodge Ltd.Ltd. TheThe 10 Respondent Respondent andand aa membermember ofof staffstaff namednamed LaurenLauren,, withwith MrMr SangheraSanghera ofof ValentineValentine LodgeLodge LtdLtd andand hishis son,son, metmet themthem ououtsidetside thethe property.property. TheyThey werewere ableable toto identifyidentify 1199 occupiersoccupiers (including(including children)children) plusplus unnamedunnamed other(s)other(s),, apparentlyapparently makingmaking aa totaltotal ofof 1616 adultsadults aandnd fivefive chchiildrenldren..

[37]OnOn 1919 AprilApril 2022,2022, thethe RespondentRespondent providedprovided documentsdocuments includingincluding aa copycopy leaselease ((forfor 1212 monthsmonths fromfrom 2323 JuneJune 20212021 toto 2424 JuneJune 20222022 andand onon aa monthlymonthly basisbasis thereafterthereafter)) betweenbetween ValentineValentine LodgeLodge LtdLtd andand ConkerConker PropertyProperty ManagementManagement LimitedLimited forfor aa rentrent ofof £3,500£3,500 perper monthmonth.. HeHe producedproduced copycopy tenancytenancy agreementsagreements forfor somesome ofof thethe roomsrooms fromfrom 20212021,, namingnaming thethe landlordlandlord asas ““LordsonsLordsons LimitedLimited””.. HeHe alsoalso producedproduced somesome tenancytenancy agreementsagreements whichwhich hadhad beenbeen enteredentered intointo withwith thethe previousprevious ownerowner.. RentsRents underunder thethe 20212021 agreementsagreements appearappear toto havehave rangedranged fromfrom £400£400 toto £550£550 perper room.room. OnOn 2121 AprilApril 20222022,, MsMs ZawadzkiZawadzki inspectedinspected againagain toto accessaccess thethe remainingremaining room.room.

[38]OnOn 2626 AprilApril 2022,2022, MsMs ZawadzkiZawadzki sentsent toto ValentineValentine LodgeLodge Ltd,Ltd, thethe Respondent,Respondent, LordsonsLordsons LimitedLimited andand ConkerConker PropertyProperty ManagementManagement LimitedLimited notificationsnotifications ofof hazardshazards (one(one inin respectrespect ofof thethe mainmain propertyproperty andand oneone inin respectrespect ofof “Flat“Flat 4”,4”, thethe selfself--containedcontained flat)flat).. SheShe proproposedposed toto serveserve anan improvementimprovement noticenotice,, andand aa prohibitionprohibition orderorder inin respectrespect ofof roomsrooms 1,1, 2,2, 33 andand 88 becausebecause theythey werewere undersized.undersized. SheShe saidsaid thethe hazardshazards (other(other thanthan thosethose thethe subjectsubject ofof thethe convictions)convictions) includedincluded absenceabsence ofof fixedfixed spacespace heatingheating toto lettingletting rooms,rooms, anan insecureinsecure frontfront entranceentrance doordoor,, risksrisks ofof burnsburns oror scaldsscalds fromfrom poorlypoorly locatedlocated standalonestandalone cookers,cookers, unrestrictedunrestricted windowswindows onon thethe secondsecond floorfloor riskingrisking fallsfalls,, extensiveextensive dampdamp andand mouldmould inin thethe sharedshared babathingthing facilitiesfacilities andand concernsconcerns aboutabout overloadedoverloaded powerpower sockets.sockets.

[39]OnOn 1717 MayMay 2022,2022, thethe proposedproposed improvementimprovement noticesnotices (requiring(requiring worksworks toto bebe completedcompleted withinwithin twotwo monthsmonths fromfrom 1616 JuneJune 2022)2022) andand thethe proposedproposed prohibitionprohibition orderorderss prohibitingprohibiting useuse ofof thethe undersizedundersized roomsrooms forfor residentialresidential purposespurposes (suspended(suspended forfor upup toto threethree monthsmonths toto allowallow thethe occupiersoccupiers timetime toto findfind alternativealternative accommodation)accommodation) werewere served.served.

[40]TheThe ApplicantApplicant hadhad nono responsesresponses fromfrom thethe RespondentRespondent toto anyany ofof thisthis.. OnOn 1515 JuneJune 2022,2022, aa representativerepresentative ofof MrMr SangheraSanghera appliedapplied forfor anan HMOHMO licencelicence,, confirmingconfirming therethere werewere 1111--1515 peoplepeople occupyingoccupying fromfrom 1111 households.households. TheThe freeholderfreeholder engagedengaged contractorscontractors toto carrycarry outout worksworks andand appointedappointed aa newnew managingmanaging agent,agent, OceanOcean Residential,Residential, fromfrom JuneJune 2022.2022.

[41]TheThe ReRespondent,spondent, LordsonsLordsons LimitedLimited,, ConkerConker PropertyProperty ManagementManagement LimitedLimited,, MrMr andand MrsMrs SangheraSanghera andand ValentineValentine LodgeLodge LtdLtd werewere prosecutedprosecuted forfor thethe banningbanning orderorder offencesoffences summarisedsummarised aboveabove asas personspersons managingmanaging (o(or,r, inin thethe casecase ofof thethe licensinglicensing offence,offence, thethe personspersons managingmanaging oror inin controlcontrol)).. TheyThey werewere alsoalso prosecutedprosecuted forfor thethe offence,offence, uundernder sectionsection 236236 ofof thethe Act,Act, ofof failurefailure toto produceproduce documentsdocuments demandeddemanded onon 44 AprilApril 20232023 underunder sectionsection 235235 aboutabout wherewhere moneymoney collectedcollected fromfrom occupiersoccupiers hahadd beenbeen paidpaid to.to.

[42]AtAt thethe firstfirst hearinghearing onon 2525 JanuaryJanuary 2023,2023, thethe RespondentRespondent pleadedpleaded notnot guiltyguilty toto allall offencesoffences andand aa trialtrial waswas fixedfixed forfor twotwo daysdays fromfrom 2727 JuneJune 2023.2023. OnOn thethe firstfirst dayday ofof thethe trial,trial, thethe RespondentRespondent changedchanged hishis pleaplea toto guiltyguilty andand 11 arrangements arrangements werewere mademade forfor sentensentenccinging onon 77 JulyJuly 20232023,, atat thethe samesame timetime asas thethe offencesoffences relatingrelating toto 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad.. WeWe werewere toldtold thatthat ValentineValentine LodgeLodge LtdLtd alsoalso pleadedpleaded guiltyguilty toto thethe offenceoffence ofof failurefailure toto licencelicence andand thethe chargescharges againstagainst MrMr andand MrsMrs SangheraSanghera werewere withdrawn.withdrawn.

[43]TThehe ApplicantApplicant hadhad failedfailed toto provideprovide sufficientsufficient evidenceevidence ofof allall thethe convictionsconvictions andand finefiness theythey soughtsought toto relyrely uponupon.. TheyThey couldcould demonstratedemonstrate,, inin relationrelation toto thethe Respondent,Respondent, aa finefine ofof £1,517£1,517 plusplus aa victimvictim surchargesurcharge ofof £152£152 andand costscosts ofof £2,542.57£2,542.57,, andand thethe samesame amountsamounts againagain inin relationrelation toto ConkerConker PropertyProperty ManagementManagement Limited.Limited. TheThe ApplicantApplicant saidsaid otherother finesfines hadhad beenbeen imposedimposed,, onon ValentineValentine LodgeLodge LtdLtd oror others,others, takingtaking thethe totaltotal ofof thethe fines,fines, surchargessurcharges andand costscosts toto £16,846£16,846.. However,However, eveneven atat thethe hearihearingng,, theythey coucouldld notnot confirmconfirm ththee figurefigures.s. TheirTheir totaltotal appearsappears toto bebe aboutabout fourfour timestimes thethe totaltotal fine,fine, surchargesurcharge andand costscosts imposedimposed onon thethe RespondentRespondent.. AAss arrangedarranged atat thethe hearinghearing,, wewe proceedproceed onon thethe basisbasis thatthat thethe totaltotal finesfines imposedimposed forfor thesethese offencesoffences werewere atat leastleast ££3,0343,034 (and(and probablyprobably twicetwice that)that) plusplus victimvictim surchargessurcharges andand costs.costs. Assessment Assessment

[44]TheThe relevantrelevant offencesoffences werewere seriousserious,, particularlyparticularly inin relationrelation toto firefire safetysafety mattersmatters.. 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad extendedextended forfor threethree storeysstoreys aboveabove aa restaurant,restaurant, aa potentialpotential firefire riskrisk.. IItt hadhad onlyonly twotwo firfiree alarmalarm detectorsdetectors ((oneone inin aa firstfirst floorfloor hallwayhallway andand oneone inin aa firstfirst floorfloor bedroom,bedroom, whichwhich hadhad bothboth beenbeen coveredcovered withwith foil,foil, thethe RespondentRespondent saidsaid byby aa tenant)tenant),, whwhenen detectiondetection waswas obviouslyobviously alsoalso neededneeded inin thethe otherother areas,areas, andand thethe alarmalarm systemsystem panelpanel waswas displayingdisplaying faults.faults. TheThe onlyonly access/access/escapeescape routeroute waswas usingusing thethe smallsmall internalinternal staircasestaircase toto reachreach thethe externalexternal metalmetal staircasestaircase,, whichwhich waswas clutteredcluttered withwith rubbishrubbish.. AtAt 9090--90a90a WestWest RoadRoad,, inin additionaddition toto similarsimilar firefire safetysafety failingsfailings,, extinguishersextinguishers andand somesome firefire doorsdoors werewere notnot maintainedmaintained..

[45]BothBoth propertiesproperties werewere overcrowded,overcrowded, whichwhich greatlygreatly increasedincreased thethe risksrisks ofof firefire andand ofof injuryinjury oror lossloss ofof lifelife inin thethe eventevent ofof fire.fire. OnlyOnly oneone overcrowdingovercrowding mattermatter hadhad beenbeen prosecuted,prosecuted, inin relationrelation toto thethe familyfamily ofof fivefive livingliving inin aa roomroom atat 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad whichwhich shouldshould notnot havehave beenbeen occupiedoccupied byby moremore thanthan twotwo peoplepeople,, butbut thatthat waswas obviouslyobviously serious.serious. TheThe relativelyrelatively modestmodest finesfines imposedimposed dodo notnot seemseem toto indicateindicate veryvery seriousserious offencesoffences,, butbut thatthat appearsappears toto bebe thethe resultresult ofof thethe narrownarrow andand specificspecific chargescharges whichwhich werewere pursuedpursued,, includingincluding somesome whichwhich seemseem trivialtrivial.. WeWe werewere toldtold thatthat thethe onlyonly sentencingsentencing remarksremarks referredreferred generallygenerally toto thethe seriousnessseriousness ofof firefire safetysafety matters.matters. TheThe lowlow finesfines imposedimposed onon thethe ResRespondentpondent personallypersonally maymay partlypartly bebe thethe resultresult ofof othersothers beingbeing prosecutedprosecuted atat thethe samesame timetime,, withwith totaltotal finesfines divideddivided betwbetweeneen themthem.. TheThe levellevel ofof thethe finesfines mightmight alsoalso bebe thethe resultresult ofof thethe separateseparate sentencinsentencingg hearinghearing atat aa differentdifferent MagistratesMagistrates CourtCourt followingfollowing convictionsconvictions inin absenceabsence andand guiltyguilty pleas,pleas, ifif aa fullerfuller reviewreview ofof thethe evidenceevidence waswas notnot possiblepossible..

[46]IInn thisthis casecase,, itit isis artificialartificial toto looklook onlyonly atat thethe convictionconvictions.s. TThehe ApplicantApplicant hadhad focussedfocussed onon theirtheir improvementimprovement noticesnotices andand otherother practicalpractical enforcementenforcement actionaction toto dealdeal withwith otherother seriousserious mattersmatters andand seekseek toto improveimprove 12 the the conditionsconditions inin thethe propertiesproperties asas soonsoon asas possiblepossible.. TTheirheir narrownarrow prosecutionsprosecutions andand thethe finesfines dodo notnot reflectreflect thethe conditionsconditions inin thethe properties,properties, oror thethe overalloverall harmharm oror potentialpotential haharmrm toto thethe occupiersoccupiers (we(we notenote paragraphparagraph 3.33.3 ofof thethe nonnon--statutorystatutory guidance)guidance).. AtAt bothboth properties,properties, occupiersoccupiers includingincluding youngyoung childrenchildren werewere exposedexposed toto lifelife safetysafety firefire riskriskss andand unacceptableunacceptable livingliving conditions,conditions, asas summarisedsummarised belowbelow..

[47]TThehe overcrowdingovercrowding ofof 1212 ClifftownClifftown was,was, asas MrMr OattOatt said,said, concerningconcerning,, withwith atat leastleast 1010 peoplepeople inin occupationoccupation.. AApartpart fromfrom thethe oneone familyfamily notednoted above,above, thethe previousprevious tenanciestenancies showedshowed roomsrooms onon thethe thirdthird floorfloor hadhad beebeenn letlet outout inin thethe pastpast.. EvenEven ifif thethe smallestsmallest roomroom (5(5 sq.sq. m.m. withwith nono windows)windows) hadhad onlyonly beenbeen letlet withwith anotheranother ofof thosethose rooms,rooms, asas thethe RespondentRespondent suggested,suggested, theythey shouldshould notnot havehave beenbeen occupied.occupied. TheThe propertyproperty hadhad solidsolid brickbrick wallswalls andand dilapidateddilapidated sashsash windows,windows, soso wouldwould havehave beenbeen coldcold andand difficultdifficult toto heatheat eveneven wiwithth anan adequateadequate system.system. ButBut itit hadhad nono adequateadequate meansmeans ofof heating.heating. OneOne ofof thethe roomsrooms hadhad aa singlesingle fixedfixed panelpanel electricelectric heater.heater. AllAll thethe otherother roomsrooms reliedrelied onon plugplug--inin electricelectric heaters,heaters, whichwhich significantlysignificantly increaseincrease firefire risksrisks fromfrom thethe heatersheaters themselvesthemselves andand fromfrom overloadedoverloaded electricalelectrical socketssockets andand extensionextension leads.leads. ThisThis leftleft people,people, includingincluding youngyoung children,children, livingliving andand sleepingsleeping inin coldcold (and(and atat leastleast inin partpart damp)damp) conditions.conditions.

[48]TheThe overcrowdingovercrowding atat 9090--90a90a WestWest RoadRoad waswas alsoalso aa seriousserious concern.concern. ThatThat overcrowding,overcrowding, thethe similarsimilar lacklack ofof fixedfixed heatingheating andand reliancereliance onon portableportable heatersheaters,, andand thethe useuse ofof standstand--alonealone ovensovens,, significantlysignificantly increasedincreased firefire risksrisks andand leftleft thethe occupiersoccupiers ((aroundaround 1616 adultsadults andand fivefive childrenchildren,, itit seemsseems)) livingliving inin unacceptableunacceptable conditions.conditions. ItIt waswas obviobviousous fromfrom thethe ffrontront pagepage ofof thethe HMOHMO licencelicence onon displaydisplay thatthat itit hadhad expired,expired, andand whatwhat wouldwould bebe needed.needed. DespiteDespite this,this, andand havinhavingg obtainedobtained anan HMOHMO licencelicence forfor 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad inin 20172017,, andand thethe investigationinvestigation andand actionaction byby thethe ApplicantApplicant forfor 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad sincesince latelate 20212021,, thethe RespondentRespondent hadhad mademade nono applicationapplication forfor anan HMOHMO licencelicence oror apparentapparent attempattemptt toto dealdeal withwith thethe similarsimilar risksrisks andand deficienciesdeficiencies atat 9090--90a90a WestWest Road.Road. ThThatat propertyproperty waswas unlicensedunlicensed forfor aa year,year, fromfrom JuneJune 20212021 toto JuneJune 20222022,, whenwhen thethe freeholderfreeholder arrangedarranged theirtheir ownown applicationapplication andand engagedengaged aa newnew agent.agent. TheThe RespondentRespondent,, itit seems,seems, hadhad donedone nothing.nothing.

[49]WeWe havehave acceptedaccepted thethe evidenceevidence fromfrom thethe ApplicantApplicant aboutabout thesethese mattersmatters.. TThehe RespondentRespondent producedproduced nothingnothing toto challengechallenge itit andand chosechose notnot toto crosscross--examineexamine theirtheir witnesses.witnesses.

[50]TheThe RespondentRespondent attemptedattempted,, inin hishis oraloral submissionssubmissions,, toto givegive evidenceevidence aboutabout mitigatingmitigating mattersmatters.. EEvenven ifif wewe taketake thisthis intointo accountaccount,, itit hashas nono weight.weight. IIff thethe originaloriginal complainantcomplainant tenanttenant waswas aa problemproblem andand hahadd cocoveredvered thethe alarmalarm detectorsdetectors withwith foilfoil,, thatthat makesmakes nono realreal differencedifference toto thethe overalloverall severityseverity ofof thethe conditionsconditions oror thethe needneed toto inspectinspect,, manamanagege andand maintainmaintain anan HMOHMO.. TenancyTenancy agreementsagreements maymay havehave beenbeen givengiven toto fewerfewer peoplepeople thanthan werewere actuallyactually occupyingoccupying ((itit isis notnot unknunknownown forfor ccouplesouples toto havehave childrenchildren,, oror tenantenantsts toto attemptattempt toto bringbring inin othersothers toto shareshare costscosts)) butbut aa managermanager hashas toto useuse reasonablereasonable endeavoursendeavours toto monitormonitor andand controlcontrol occupation.occupation. AA newnew assertionassertion,, aboutabout falsefalse tenancytenancy agreementsagreements beingbeing usedused toto claimclaim supportsupport 13 payments payments,, waswas mademade farfar tootoo latelate andand unsupportedunsupported.. ItIt maymay bebe thatthat aa propertyproperty managermanager workingworking forfor LordsonsLordsons broughtbrought inin membersmembers ofof hishis familyfamily andand friendsfriends toto occupyoccupy 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad.. ItIt isis lessless crediblecredible thatthat thethe RespondentRespondent waswas notnot awareaware ofof somesome problemsproblems there,there, particularlyparticularly whenwhen LordsonsLordsons estateestate agentsagents werewere nextnext doordoor butbut oneone.. IIff hehe diddid notnot troubletrouble toto makemake himselfhimself aware,aware, tthishis makesmakes nono realreal differencedifference toto thethe responsibilitiesresponsibilities ofof aa managermanager/landlord/landlord.. AgaAgain,in, itit doesdoes notnot changechange ourour overalloverall assessmentassessment ofof thethe conditionsconditions inin whichwhich peoplepeople werewere housedhoused oror thethe culpabilityculpability ofof thethe RespondentRespondent..

[51]TheThe RespondentRespondent hadhad nono previousprevious convictionsconvictions andand hadhad notnot previouslypreviously beenbeen enteredentered onon thethe databasedatabase ofof roguerogue landlordlandlordss andand propertyproperty agents.agents. MrMr OattOatt explainedexplained thatthat thethe ApplicantApplicant hadhad difficultiesdifficulties accessingaccessing thethe databasedatabase lastlast yearyear followingfollowing thethe depardepartureture ofof staffstaff whowho hadhad thethe requirequisitesite accessaccess credentialscredentials,, soso hadhad notnot soughtsought toto enterenter thethe RespondentRespondent onon thethe databasedatabase forfor thethe convictionsconvictions..

[52]InIn relationrelation toto thethe likelylikely effecteffect ofof thethe banningbanning orderorder onon thethe relevantrelevant personperson andand anyanyoneone elseelse whowho maymay bebe affectedaffected byby itit,, tthehe nonnon--statutorystatutory guidanceguidance refersrefers (at(at 3.3)3.3) toto thethe needneed toto::a. punish the offender (observing that a banning order is a severe sanction; the length of a ban should be proportionate and reflect both the severity of the offence and whether there is a pattern of previous offending, set at a high enough level to remove the worst offenders from the sector, ensure it has a real economic impact on the offender and demonstrate the consequences of not complying with their responsibilities);

b. deter the offender from repeating the offence (making any ban long enough to be likely to do so); and

c. deter others from committing similar offences (it being important people realise the local housing authority is proactive in applying for banning orders where needed and the length of the banning order will be enough to both punish the offender and deter repeat offending).

[53]OnOn 1919 OctoberOctober 2023,2023, thethe ApplicantApplicant gavegave noticenotice underunder sectionsection 1919 ofof thethe 20162016 ActAct requiringrequiring information,information, includingincluding allall propertiesproperties currentlycurrently leased,leased, ownedowned oror managedmanaged throughthrough thethe RespondentRespondent oror thethe CompaniesCompanies andand allall tenancy/licencetenancy/licence agreements.agreements. OnOn 66 NovemberNovember 2023,2023, thethe RespondentRespondent andand “Lordsons”“Lordsons” eacheach repliedreplied thatthat thethe CompaniesCompanies andand ChapterChapter 7777 Limited:Limited: ““areare exclusivelyexclusively engagedengaged inin salessales activities,activities, withwith nonenone ofof thethe aboveabove companiescompanies havinghaving managementmanagement oror controlcontrol ofof thethe premisespremises asas fromfrom 1717thth MayMay 20232023 oror datedate ofof commencementcommencement thereafterthereafter inin questionquestion …… ThisThis decisiondecision isis inin directdirect accordanceaccordance withwith thethe recentrecent newsletternewsletter releaserelease onon thethe CityCity CouncilCouncil websitewebsite andand variousvarious prominentprominent mediamedia outletsoutlets …… thisthis decisiondecision hashas beenbeen reinforcedreinforced byby thethe negativenegative presspress coveragecoverage andand thethe recentrecent banningbanning orderorder II havehave 14 received received …… II trusttrust thatthat thisthis informationinformation adequatelyadequately addressesaddresses anyany concernsconcerns…”.…”.

[54]TheThe ApplicantApplicant reliedrelied onon thisthis.. TheyThey saidsaid thethe RespondentRespondent hadhad aa newlynewly establishedestablished overseasoverseas agencyagency toto earnearn incomeincome eveneven ifif hehe waswas bannedbanned here,here, andand couldcould continuecontinue toto receivereceive incomeincome fromfrom propertyproperty salesale activities.activities. TheyThey saidsaid therethere waswas nono needneed forfor transitionaltransitional provisionsprovisions forfor currentcurrent residentialresidential tenanciestenancies oror windingwinding downdown aa business.business. TheyThey pointedpointed outout thatthat 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad isis stillstill subjectsubject toto thethe prohibitionprohibition order,order, andand 9090--90a90a WestWest RoadRoad isis nownow licensedlicensed byby thethe freeholderfreeholder andand managedmanaged byby aa newnew agent,agent, withoutwithout thethe involvementinvolvement ofof thethe Respondent.Respondent. However,However, ttheirheir evideevidencence alsoalso explainedexplained thatthat onon 2929 FebruaryFebruary 20242024 theythey hadhad discovereddiscovered thatthat ““LordsonsLordsons EstatesEstates”” werewere advertisingadvertising sixsix propertiesproperties ((inin thethe samesame buildingbuilding)) toto let.let. TheThe advertisementadvertisement waswas dateddated 2222 FebruaryFebruary 20242024 throughthrough Zoopla.Zoopla.

[55]TheThe RespondentRespondent diddid notnot disputedispute thatthat hehe waswas aa professionalprofessional propertyproperty agent.agent. HeHe saidsaid thatthat hehe wouldwould notnot bebe managingmanaging anyany propertiesproperties himselfhimself andand wouldwould focusfocus onon salessales,, butbut alsoalso referredreferred toto investmentinvestment companies.companies. WeWe checkedchecked thatthat hehe understoodunderstood thethe wordingwording ofof thethe relevantrelevant definitdefinitionsions inin thethe 20162016 ActAct.. HHee confirmedconfirmed hehe waswas notnot carryingcarrying outout anyany ofof thethe activitiesactivities whichwhich wouldwould bebe bannedbanned byby thethe orderorder soughtsought byby thethe ApplicantApplicant andand waswas notnot goinggoing toto associateassociate withwith anyoneanyone whowho waswas.. TheThe investmentinvestment companiescompanies hehe hadhad mentionedmentioned dealdeal onlyonly withwith commercialcommercial lettings.lettings. HeHe totoldld usus thatthat hehe waswas nono longerlonger involvedinvolved inin ChapterChapter 7777 Limited.Limited. HeHe confirmedconfirmed therethere hadhad beenbeen aa lotlot ofof negativenegative presspress coveragecoverage followingfollowing thethe convictions,convictions, soso hehe hadhad decideddecided notnot toto bebe involvedinvolved inin thisthis typetype ofof work.work. HeHe diddid notnot disputedispute thatthat aa banningbanning orderorder shouldshould bebe made,made, butbut askedasked usus toto considerconsider “suspending”“suspending” itit oror minimisingminimising thethe periodperiod.. Conclusion Conclusion

[56]WeWe areare satisfiedsatisfied thatthat wewe shouldshould makemake aa banningbanning orderorder againstagainst thethe RespondentRespondent forfor allall ofof thethe potentialpotential activitiesactivities,, andand thatthat itit shouldshould bebe forfor aa periodperiod ofof threethree years.years. AA longerlonger banban wouldwould notnot bebe justifiedjustified byby thethe seriousnessseriousness ofof thethe relevantrelevant mattersmatters,, inin viewview ofof thethe limitedlimited naturenature ofof thethe actualactual convictionsconvictions ((somesome ofof whichwhich havehave justjust becomebecome spentspent),), thethe absenceabsence ofof previousprevious convictionsconvictions,, thethe relativelyrelatively limitedlimited (but(but itit seemsseems proportionate)proportionate) evidenceevidence producedproduced toto usus andand thethe absenceabsence ofof evidenceevidence ofof problemsproblems outsideoutside thesethese twotwo properties.properties. However,However, aa shortershorter banban wouldwould notnot bebe sufficient.sufficient. AA suspendedsuspended orderorder certainlycertainly wouldwould not,not, eveneven ifif wewe hadhad powerpower toto makemake one.one.

[57]TheThe mainmain purposepurpose ofof ththisis orderorder isis deterrencedeterrence ofof thethe RespondentRespondent andand othersothers fromfrom repeatrepeat oror similarsimilar offendingoffending,, sendingsending thethe messagemessage thatthat finesfines/penalties/penalties cannotcannot bbee absorbedabsorbed asas aa costcost ofof overcrowdingovercrowding tenantstenants intointo unsafeunsafe andand inadequateinadequate housinghousing,, particularlyparticularly wherewhere firefire safetysafety risksrisks areare involved,involved, andand otherother enforcementenforcement actionaction cannotcannot simplysimply bebe avoided.avoided.

[58]TThehe RespondentRespondent diddid notnot denydeny thatthat hehe hadhad misrepresentedmisrepresented toto thethe ApplicantApplicant thatthat hehe waswas thethe freeholderfreeholder ofof 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad soso thatthat hehe couldcould obtainobtain anan HMOHMO licencelicence withoutwithout thethe truetrue freeholderfreeholder beingbeing informed.informed. HeHe andand hishis colleaguescolleagues alsoalso misinformedmisinformed thethe officersofficers fromfrom thethe ApplicantApplicant aboutabout 15 practical practical mattersmatters whenwhen theythey werewere seekingseeking toto investigateinvestigate andand requirerequire improvementsimprovements.. EvenEven ifif otherother mattersmatters areare simplysimply thethe resultresult ooff negligencenegligence onon thethe partpart ofof thethe RespondentRespondent,, theythey werewere seriousserious andand hadhad continuedcontinued forfor significantsignificant periodsperiods ofof timetime.. TheThe licencelicence conditioncondition forfor 1212 ClifftownClifftown RoadRoad fromfrom 20172017 requiringrequiring overhauloverhaul ofof windowswindows waswas notnot compliedcomplied withwith yearsyears later.later. EvenEven followingfollowing thethe improvementimprovement notice,notice, nnoo realreal remedialremedial worksworks werewere carriedcarried out;out; instead,instead, thethe propertyproperty waswas emptiedemptied oror allowedallowed toto emptyempty.. Similarly,Similarly, thethe RespondentRespondent simplysimply left,left, oror waswas removed,removed, followingfollowing thethe laterlater enforcementenforcement actionaction inin relationrelation toto 9090--90a90a WestWest RoadRoad,, withwith nono attemptattempt onon hishis partpart toto licencelicence oror dealdeal withwith thethe problemsproblems atat thethe property.property.

[59]WWee areare satisfiedsatisfied thatthat thethe banningbanning orderorder shouldshould alsoalso banban thethe RespondentRespondent fromfrom beingbeing involvedinvolved inin anyany bodybody corporatecorporate whichwhich carriescarries outout anyany ofof thethe bannedbanned activities.activities. HeHe hashas workedworked thrthroughough companiescompanies asas solesole oror mainmain directordirector andand shareholdershareholder inin thethe pastpast andand appearsappears toto havehave transferredtransferred thethe currentcurrent tradingtrading companycompany toto aa familyfamily membermember.. WithoutWithout thisthis typetype ofof provision,provision, thethe banningbanning orderorder couldcould bebe avoidedavoided oror couldcould bebe tootoo difficultdifficult toto enforceenforce,, soso maymay notnot bebe effectiveeffective..

[60]TheThe ApplicantApplicant askedasked usus toto makemake anyany banningbanning orderorder taketake effecteffect immediatelimmediately.y. WeWe agreeagree thatthat basedbased onon whatwhat thethe RespondentRespondent toldtold usus therethere shouldshould bebe nono transitionaltransitional provisionsprovisions oror longlong delay,delay, butbut wewe dodo considerconsider thatthat wewe shouldshould allowallow aa clearclear weekweek soso thatthat thethe ResponRespondentdent cancan makemake absolutelyabsolutely suresure hehe hashas nono remainingremaining potentialpotential involvementinvolvement inin anyany bannedbanned activitiesactivities oror anyany bodybody corporatecorporate thatthat carriescarries outout anyany bannedbanned activities.activities. Accordingly,Accordingly, thethe banban willwill taketake effecteffect fromfrom 11 JulyJuly 20242024 andand endend onon 3030 JuneJune 2027.2027. Judge David Wyatt 19 June 2024 Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide 16 whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). --- decision_2.pdf --- © CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference CAM/00KF/HBA/2024/0002 Applicant Southend-on-Sea City Council Respondent Mr Ruhul Mohammed Shamsuddin Application Application for a banning order Tribunal members Judge David Wyatt Mr C Gowman BSc MCIEH MCMI Date of decision 19 June 2024 DECISION Decision of the tribunal The tribunal has decided to make a banning order, which is attached to this decision notice, against the Respondent in the terms and for the three-year period set out in the order. Reasons

[1]On 11 December 2023, the tribunal office received an application by the Applicant local housing authority under section 15 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the “2016 Act”) for a banning order against the Respondent for five years.

[2]The Applicant also sought provision in such order banning the Respondent from being involved in any body corporate carrying on banned activities. They referred to Lordsons Limited (now named Zenblaze Limited), Lordsons Estates Limited (now named NOPQE Limited) and Conker Property Management Limited (the “Companies”) in particular. 2 Banning order offences re. 12 Clifftown Road, Southend

[3]On 17 May 2023, the Respondent (having pleaded not guilty) was convicted in his absence of the following offences in relation to 12 Clifftown Road, Southend-on-Sea, the first under section 72(3) and the remainder under section 234 of the Housing Act 2004 (the “2004 Act”): on “or before” 8 December 2021:a. failing to comply with an HMO licence condition by allowing a second-floor room, where a maximum of two occupants were permitted, to accommodate a family of five;

b. non-compliance with regulation 3 of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 (the “Regulations”), in that the requisite contact details of the manager were not displayed;

c. non-compliance with Regulation 7(2)(a), in that the third floor balustrade had missing spindles;

d. non-compliance with Regulation 7(2)(b), in that there was a lack of an additional handrail to the staircase down to the first floor;

e. non-compliance with Regulation 7(2)(c), in that the coverings on the entrance hallway, and the stairs down to and from the first floor, were not safely fixed and in good repair; on 6 January 2022:

f. non-compliance with Regulations 7(2)(d) and 4(2) in that the fire alarm control panel was not maintained in good working order (this was treated as two separate offences);

g. non-compliance with Regulation 4(2) in that the alarm (meaning the detector) in the first floor hallway was not maintained in good working order; on 6 January 2022 and 1 February 2022:

h. non-compliance with Regulation 7(1)(c) in that the passageway from the external staircase into the street was not clear (this was treated as two separate offences, one on each date). Banning order offences re. 90-90a West Road, Westcliff

[4]On 27 June 2023, the Respondent (having changed his pleas to guilty) was convicted of the following offences in relation to 90-90a West Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, the first under section 72(1) and the remainder under section 234 of the 2004 Act: 3 between 1 July 2021 and 15 June 2022:a. control or management of an HMO which was required to be licensed but was not; on 1 April 2022:

b. non-compliance with Regulation 3, in that the requisite contact details of the manager were not displayed;

c. non-compliance with Regulation 4(2), in that the fire alarm system was not maintained in good working order;

d. non-compliance with Regulation 4(2), in that the fire extinguishers were not maintained, and adequate means of escape free from obstruction was provided; and

e. non-compliance with Regulation 4(1)(b), in that the “letting doors” were damaged and in poor repair in rooms 2 and 6. Procedural history

[5]On 19 February 2024, the application was referred to the judiciary. On 20 February 2024, a procedural Judge gave case management directions. Pursuant to those directions, the Applicant produced a bundle of their case documents. The Respondent failed to comply with the directions, which required production by 5 April 2024 of a bundle of the case documents he wished to rely upon.

[6]At the hearing by video on 30 May 2024, the Applicant was represented by Ms Karolina Zielinska of counsel. Paul Oatt and Jasmine Zawadzki, both regulatory services officers employed by the Applicant, attended to give evidence. The Respondent attended and represented himself. Initial conditions/considerations

[7]The offences described above are all designated ‘banning order offences’, so section 15(1) of the 2016 Act is satisfied. It was not disputed that the Applicant had complied with the pre-application procedure required by section 15(3). On 11 September 2023, they sent notice to the Respondent that they intended to apply for a banning order against him and explained why. They warned this could prevent him from letting housing in England, engaging in English letting agency work and engaging in English property management work. They detailed the relevant offences and other alleged offences. They warned they were seeking a banning order to last for five years. Their notice was given within six months of the relevant convictions and they gave him 28 days in which to make representations. No representations were made during the 28-day period. The Applicant waited until after that period had ended before making their application to the tribunal on 11 December 2023. 4

[8]Generally, the tribunal can only make a banning order against a person who was a ‘residential landlord’ (defined in s.55 of the 2016 Act) or property agent (defined in s.56) at the time they committed the banning order offence (s.16(1)(b)). Where a banning order application is made against an officer of a body corporate, the tribunal may make a banning order against that officer even if that condition is not met (s.16(3)). The relevant bodies corporate in this case are summarised below.

[9]Lordsons Limited was incorporated in 2017, describing its business as: “other letting and operating of own or leased real estate”. The Respondent (who was born in 1982) is the sole director and shareholder. After 22 January 2024, the name of the company was changed to Zenblaze Limited.

[10]Conker Property Management Limited was incorporated in 2019, describing its business as: “real estate agencies”. Apart from one director who was appointed in 2020 and then resigned two days later, the Respondent has been the sole director, and appears to be the sole shareholder.

[11]Lordsons Estates Limited was incorporated in 2020 describing its business as: “real estate agencies”. The Respondent is the sole director and shareholder. E-mail correspondence from the Respondent in 2021 and Zeenat Shamsuddin in 2022 indicates this was the company then trading as Lordsons estate agents (“Lordsons Estates Limited T/AS Lordsons”) from 14 Clifftown Road. After 22 January 2024, the name of the company was changed to NOPQE Limited.

[12]Those three Companies are each currently subject to proposed administrative strike-off because documents are overdue. Lordsons Estate Agents still appear to be trading from 14 Clifftown Road, but this now appears (from more recent e-mail correspondence) to be a trading name used by Chapter 77 Limited, a company incorporated in December 2022 describing its business as: “other letting and operating of own or leased real estate”. The Respondent was the sole director until 19 May 2023, when he resigned. He was replaced by Zeenat Shamsuddin, who was born in 1983, to whom it appears he transferred his share(s) in the company.

[13]The Respondent was a residential landlord (as defined) at least in respect of some of the rooms at 12 Clifftown Road (being the landlord named in the tenancy agreements with occupiers, and the holder of the lease from the freeholder, as described below), as was Lordsons Estates Limited, a company of which he was a director, in respect of at least one other. Similarly, Lordsons Limited and/or Conker Property Management Limited, companies of which the Respondent was a director, were a residential landlord at least in respect of some of the rooms at 90-90a West Road (being respectively the landlord named in tenancy agreements with the occupiers and the tenant under the lease from the freeholder, as described below). None of these matters were disputed. 5

[14]Accordingly, the condition in s.16(1)(b) is satisfied at least in relation to 12 Clifftown Road and there is no need for it to be satisfied in relation to 90- 90a West Road. Even if a body corporate of which the Respondent was a director would for the purposes of s.16(3) need to be a residential landlord at the time the relevant offences were committed, we are satisfied that at least one of them was.

[15]The non-statutory guidance “Banning Order Offences under the Housing and Planning Act 2016” says (at 3.4): “A spent conviction should not be taken into account when determining whether to apply for or make a banning order.” By sections 1 and 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (the “1974 Act”), where an “individual” has been convicted of an offence, the rehabilitation period (for the sentences imposed in this case) is the end of the period of 12 months: “…beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed”. By section 7(3), if a judicial authority is: “…satisfied, in the light of any considerations which appear to it to be relevant … that justice cannot be done in the case except by admitting or requiring evidence relating to a person’s spent convictions or to circumstances ancillary thereto”, that authority may admit that evidence.

[16]In Hussain v London Borough of Newham

[2023] UKUT 287 (LC)

, the Upper Tribunal confirmed that, notwithstanding the guidance, the words: “has been convicted of a banning order offence” in sections 15(1) and 16(1) of the 2016 Act do not refer only to convictions which are not spent. The effect of the 1974 Act is that: “…evidence of spent convictions will be inadmissible, unless the FTT is persuaded, pursuant to section 7(3), that “justice cannot be done” except by admitting that evidence.” [32]. In considering that, the Upper Tribunal confirmed, it is right not to focus on personal circumstances but on whether the tribunal could do its job at all in the absence of the evidence. In that case: “For justice to be done, the FTT had to at least look at the evidence. That did not mean that it was necessarily going to make a banning order; it was simply that consideration of the local housing authority’s application could not get off the ground unless evidence of the spent convictions was admitted.”

[17]While the convictions were not spent when the banning order application was made, the rehabilitation period in respect of all the offences relating to 12 Clifftown Road expired shortly before the hearing. Those convictions are now treated as spent and generally no evidence would be admissible to prove that the offences were committed etc (sections 1 and 4 of the 1974 Act, respectively). The Respondent confirmed he had no objection to us taking into account all the convictions and evidence relied upon. We are satisfied that justice cannot be done unless we do so. The application was made promptly, in December 2023. The spent convictions, from May 2023, relate to conduct from late 2021 up to February 2022, became spent only two weeks before the hearing in May 2024, and are said to indicate a pattern of behaviour. The other convictions, relating to 90-90a West Road, are unspent; their rehabilitation period expires later in June 2024. 6 General law

[18]In Knapp v Bristol City Council

[2023] UKUT 118 (LC)

, the Deputy Chamber President described the relevant statutory provisions and non- statutory guidance in relation to banning orders, at [15-29] and [30-33].

[19]The effect of a full banning order is severe, preventing a person from lawfully letting housing or engaging in letting agency or property management work in England, or being involved in any body corporate that carries out any such activity. All those expressions are defined widely in the 2016 Act. Breach of a banning order is a criminal offence for which an offender is liable to imprisonment and/or fines, or may result in a substantial financial penalty. By section 29 of the 2016 Act, a local housing authority must also enter in the rogue landlord database the name of any person against whom a banning order is made, if they have not already entered them on the database in respect of the relevant banning order offence(s). In line with all this, the non-statutory guidance states (at 1.7) that banning orders are aimed at: “Rogue landlords who flout their legal obligations and rent out accommodation which is substandard. We expect banning orders to be used for the most serious offenders”. Mr Oatt confirmed that the Applicant had not yet developed their own policy in relation to banning orders at the relevant time.

[20]Section 16(4) requires the tribunal to consider:(a) the seriousness of the offence(s);

(b) any previous convictions for a banning order offence;

(c) whether the person has at any previous time been included in the database of rogue landlords and property agents; and

(d) the likely effect of the banning order on them and anyone else who may be affected by the order. Ms Zielinska said, it was not disputed and we note it was agreed by the parties in Knapp [23] that these are not the only matters which may be taken into account. 12 Clifftown Road

[21]12 Clifftown Road is subject to a lease from 2007 which “Rahul Shamsuddin” acquired on 26 March 2015 for £1. This expires on 8 March 2027. In August 2015, the freehold title was acquired by an unconnected person, Ms Goldsmith. In 2017, the Respondent applied to the Applicant in his own name for an HMO licence, paying £900. In his application form, he indicated that he was the freeholder. He did not disclose the mortgage on the freehold title, left blank the details for any leaseholder and left blank the section asking for details of any other person who might be interested in the application. An HMO licence was granted in his name permitting up to eight occupiers. He was the council tax payer.

[22]On 25 November 2021, Mr Oatt wrote to the Respondent about allegations from a tenant of 12 Clifftown Road that after complaining about disrepair he had been threatened and attacked by “Mihai” and other people from “Lawsons” attempting to evict/harass him. On 26 November 2021, the Respondent replied, disputing what had been said. Mr Oatt replied that 7 he was perfectly willing to hear what the Respondent said had happened. It appears there was no answer to this.

[23]On 8 December 2021, Mr Oatt inspected 12 Clifftown Road. He described it as a terraced property, with a burger shop/restaurant on the ground floor. The areas which were used for residential purposes are on the first and second floors, with additional rooms on the third floor (described as the attic), all accessed using a metal external staircase at the rear. Lordsons estate agents, at 14 Clifftown Road, are next door but one. An occupier told Mr Oatt that there were 10 people living in the property; himself and his brother (from Bulgaria) and two families from Romania. He paid his rent to “Mihai” in the Lordsons office. Another, the tenant of a room on the second floor, produced a tenancy agreement which identifies the landlord simply as “Lordsons” and provides for a monthly rent of £500 and deposit of £500 with no apparent deposit protection. That tenant lived in that room with her husband and three children (all under the age of five). Mr Oatt measured the room at 11.89m2 and noted that the Essex HMO amenity standards would allow occupation by a maximum of two people (even apart from the maximum permitted occupiers in the HMO licence and the specific limit in the HMO licence of no more than two occupiers for that room). Mr Oatt found that all three rooms in the attic were too small to be occupied.

[24]Later that day, Mr Oatt sent a notice to the freeholder requiring information. The freeholder responded promptly, saying the Respondent was the tenant through her agent, Sorrells, and as far as she was aware he should be using the property as a restaurant, not an HMO. She expressed concern, asking how the HMO licence had been granted when she had not been consulted. The lease held by the Respondent demises the entire building. It permits use of the basement, ground and first floors as a restaurant, with staff accommodation above. It prohibits any underletting of part and any underletting of whole or change of use without permission. Rent statements were produced showing arrears owed to the freeholder.

[25]In response to a similar request for information, the Respondent produced documents including a spreadsheet of rents from occupiers naming “Lordsons” as owner, and copy tenancy/licence agreements. Most of the “room rental” agreements named the Respondent (“Ruhul Shamsuddin”) as the landlord. One showed “Lordsons” as landlord. As noted above, “Lordsons” was at the time a trading name used by Lordsons Estates Limited.

[26]The Applicant arranged a more detailed inspection, giving notice on 4 January 2022, for 6 January 2022. The Respondent telephoned Mr Oatt and said, amongst other things, that contractors would be on site then, carrying out work. On inspection, there were no contractors on site and no work was being carried out. A range of problems, including disrepair and inadequate heating were noted, as considered below. One of the conditions in the HMO licence from 2017 had required that defective 8 windows in room 4 and the kitchen be repaired, overhauled or replaced by 28 February 2018. That had not been done.

[27]On 12 January 2022, the Applicant gave notice (dated 4 January 2022) of proposed revocation of the HMO licence, and wrote to the Respondent about what had been found on inspection. They warned that they intended to serve an improvement notice and a prohibition order for part, giving 14 days for representations. On 28 January 2022, Zeenat Shamsuddin contacted Mr Oatt to ask about the scope of works, saying works had been carried out. She also said that the property was now empty; all the tenants had gone. Mr Oatt asked if they had been rehoused. He was told the tenants were all gone, they needed to empty the property because of his notice, and the walls forming the undersized rooms on the third floor had been knocked through to avoid the need for a prohibition order.

[28]Mr Oatt arranged to re-inspect on 1 February 2022. He was asked to delay this until the end of that week. On 1 February 2022, he inspected externally and met the tenant of the upper floor front room. She confirmed that she and her family were still living at the property; all the other occupiers had left. He found some works (such as clearing gutters and dealing with faults displayed on the fire alarm system and alarm detectors covered with foil) had been carried out, but most had not.

[29]Accordingly, on 1 February 2022, Mr Oatt served an improvement notice, requiring the Respondent and “Lordsons” to within two months from 3 March 2022 carry out specified works. These included renewal of wood- framed single glazed windows, removal of an accumulation of refuse around the external stairs, provision of an adequate gas or electric heating system (only a single fixed electric heater in one room, and portable electric heaters elsewhere, had been provided, with the boiler providing only hot water), and remediation of walls and ceiling areas affected by damp. In view of the work which had been carried out, he decided not to serve a prohibition order, but expressed concern about roof support following removal of the third floor walls.

[30]On 11 February 2022, the Applicant revoked the HMO licence. They also wrote to the Respondent noting allegations that occupiers had been threatened with eviction, warning again about the offence of unlawful eviction. The remaining tenant had been re-housed by the Applicant, after alleging that the landlords had changed the locks. That was disputed by the Respondent, who said the tenants had abandoned the property. Mr Oatt confirmed that ultimately the view had been taken that the Applicant did not have sufficient evidence of unlawful eviction to prosecute, and did not rely on this in relation to the banning order application. On 17 March 2022, Mr Oatt and the Respondent met on site with the freeholder’s agent. Mr Oatt saw that the property was now empty.

[31]On 30 December 2022, referring to earlier correspondence about failure to carry out the works required by the improvement notice of 1 February 2022 and confirmation that the property remained empty, the Applicant 9 served a prohibition order. This prohibits use of the first, second and third floors for residential accommodation. On 21 February 2023, the improvement notice was revoked. The relevant notice confirmed the specified works had not been carried out, but the improvement notice was being revoked because it had been superseded by the prohibition order (which sets out essentially the same works, which must be carried out before the property can be used for residential accommodation).

[32]The Respondent and Lordsons Estates Limited were prosecuted for the offences summarised above as persons managing (or the licence holder, in the case of the licensing offence). At a preliminary hearing on 14 October 2022, the Respondent pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. Other charges were dropped. The trial was fixed for 17 and 18 May 2023 at Colchester Magistrates Court, but only one day was needed because the Respondent did not attend and was found guilty of the 10 banning order offences summarised above relating to 12 Clifftown Road. The Applicant said, and it was not disputed, that Lordsons Estates Limited were also found guilty of nine of those offences.

[33]The Respondent attended the sentencing hearing on 7 July 2023, when Basildon Magistrates Court were said to have imposed total “fines” of £17,291 including costs and victim surcharge. When we asked, the Applicant confirmed the actual fine imposed on the Respondent was £2,344 plus a victim surcharge of £190 and costs of £6,112.50. They told us that the same amounts again were imposed on Lordsons Estates Limited, which indicates total fines of £4,688 for the relevant offences. 90-90a West Road

[34]On 25 March 2022, Ms Zawadzki was dealing with an outstanding HMO licence application made for this property in 2020. The applicant’s representative then contacted her, explaining that the property had been sold in 2021 as an HMO with tenants in situ and they believed the property was being managed by Lordsons Estate Agents. The freehold title was purchased on 23 June 2021 by Valentine Lodge Ltd, whose directors were Mr and Mrs Sanghera.

[35]On 1 April 2022, Ms Zawadzki made an unannounced visit with her colleague, Ashish Shinde. She said the property has three floors, with 10 letting rooms and one self-contained flat accessed at the side. They found 12 adults and five children in occupation of seven of the rooms, and no answer from the other rooms, at the time. Occupiers confirmed the property had been taken over by “Lordsons” in 2021. The tenant of room 6 produced his tenancy agreement, which names the landlord as “Lordsons Limited”. The front page of the copy HMO licence displayed in the hallway is for the previous owner and makes it clear that it expired in 2019 and the maximum number of persons permitted in the house was 15.

[36]On 5 April 2022 at 3pm, the same officers re-inspected on notice (given the previous day) to Lordsons Limited and Valentine Lodge Ltd. The 10 Respondent and a member of staff named Lauren, with Mr Sanghera of Valentine Lodge Ltd and his son, met them outside the property. They were able to identify 19 occupiers (including children) plus unnamed other(s), apparently making a total of 16 adults and five children.

[37]On 19 April 2022, the Respondent provided documents including a copy lease (for 12 months from 23 June 2021 to 24 June 2022 and on a monthly basis thereafter) between Valentine Lodge Ltd and Conker Property Management Limited for a rent of £3,500 per month. He produced copy tenancy agreements for some of the rooms from 2021, naming the landlord as “Lordsons Limited”. He also produced some tenancy agreements which had been entered into with the previous owner. Rents under the 2021 agreements appear to have ranged from £400 to £550 per room. On 21 April 2022, Ms Zawadzki inspected again to access the remaining room.

[38]On 26 April 2022, Ms Zawadzki sent to Valentine Lodge Ltd, the Respondent, Lordsons Limited and Conker Property Management Limited notifications of hazards (one in respect of the main property and one in respect of “Flat 4”, the self-contained flat). She proposed to serve an improvement notice, and a prohibition order in respect of rooms 1, 2, 3 and 8 because they were undersized. She said the hazards (other than those the subject of the convictions) included absence of fixed space heating to letting rooms, an insecure front entrance door, risks of burns or scalds from poorly located standalone cookers, unrestricted windows on the second floor risking falls, extensive damp and mould in the shared bathing facilities and concerns about overloaded power sockets.

[39]On 17 May 2022, the proposed improvement notices (requiring works to be completed within two months from 16 June 2022) and the proposed prohibition orders prohibiting use of the undersized rooms for residential purposes (suspended for up to three months to allow the occupiers time to find alternative accommodation) were served.

[40]The Applicant had no responses from the Respondent to any of this. On 15 June 2022, a representative of Mr Sanghera applied for an HMO licence, confirming there were 11-15 people occupying from 11 households. The freeholder engaged contractors to carry out works and appointed a new managing agent, Ocean Residential, from June 2022.

[41]The Respondent, Lordsons Limited, Conker Property Management Limited, Mr and Mrs Sanghera and Valentine Lodge Ltd were prosecuted for the banning order offences summarised above as persons managing (or, in the case of the licensing offence, the persons managing or in control). They were also prosecuted for the offence, under section 236 of the Act, of failure to produce documents demanded on 4 April 2023 under section 235 about where money collected from occupiers had been paid to.

[42]At the first hearing on 25 January 2023, the Respondent pleaded not guilty to all offences and a trial was fixed for two days from 27 June 2023. On the first day of the trial, the Respondent changed his plea to guilty and 11 arrangements were made for sentencing on 7 July 2023, at the same time as the offences relating to 12 Clifftown Road. We were told that Valentine Lodge Ltd also pleaded guilty to the offence of failure to licence and the charges against Mr and Mrs Sanghera were withdrawn.

[43]The Applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence of all the convictions and fines they sought to rely upon. They could demonstrate, in relation to the Respondent, a fine of £1,517 plus a victim surcharge of £152 and costs of £2,542.57, and the same amounts again in relation to Conker Property Management Limited. The Applicant said other fines had been imposed, on Valentine Lodge Ltd or others, taking the total of the fines, surcharges and costs to £16,846. However, even at the hearing, they could not confirm the figures. Their total appears to be about four times the total fine, surcharge and costs imposed on the Respondent. As arranged at the hearing, we proceed on the basis that the total fines imposed for these offences were at least £3,034 (and probably twice that) plus victim surcharges and costs. Assessment

[44]The relevant offences were serious, particularly in relation to fire safety matters. 12 Clifftown Road extended for three storeys above a restaurant, a potential fire risk. It had only two fire alarm detectors (one in a first floor hallway and one in a first floor bedroom, which had both been covered with foil, the Respondent said by a tenant), when detection was obviously also needed in the other areas, and the alarm system panel was displaying faults. The only access/escape route was using the small internal staircase to reach the external metal staircase, which was cluttered with rubbish. At 90-90a West Road, in addition to similar fire safety failings, extinguishers and some fire doors were not maintained.

[45]Both properties were overcrowded, which greatly increased the risks of fire and of injury or loss of life in the event of fire. Only one overcrowding matter had been prosecuted, in relation to the family of five living in a room at 12 Clifftown Road which should not have been occupied by more than two people, but that was obviously serious. The relatively modest fines imposed do not seem to indicate very serious offences, but that appears to be the result of the narrow and specific charges which were pursued, including some which seem trivial. We were told that the only sentencing remarks referred generally to the seriousness of fire safety matters. The low fines imposed on the Respondent personally may partly be the result of others being prosecuted at the same time, with total fines divided between them. The level of the fines might also be the result of the separate sentencing hearing at a different Magistrates Court following convictions in absence and guilty pleas, if a fuller review of the evidence was not possible.

[46]In this case, it is artificial to look only at the convictions. The Applicant had focussed on their improvement notices and other practical enforcement action to deal with other serious matters and seek to improve 12 the conditions in the properties as soon as possible. Their narrow prosecutions and the fines do not reflect the conditions in the properties, or the overall harm or potential harm to the occupiers (we note paragraph 3.3 of the non-statutory guidance). At both properties, occupiers including young children were exposed to life safety fire risks and unacceptable living conditions, as summarised below.

[47]The overcrowding of 12 Clifftown was, as Mr Oatt said, concerning, with at least 10 people in occupation. Apart from the one family noted above, the previous tenancies showed rooms on the third floor had been let out in the past. Even if the smallest room (5 sq. m. with no windows) had only been let with another of those rooms, as the Respondent suggested, they should not have been occupied. The property had solid brick walls and dilapidated sash windows, so would have been cold and difficult to heat even with an adequate system. But it had no adequate means of heating. One of the rooms had a single fixed panel electric heater. All the other rooms relied on plug-in electric heaters, which significantly increase fire risks from the heaters themselves and from overloaded electrical sockets and extension leads. This left people, including young children, living and sleeping in cold (and at least in part damp) conditions.

[48]The overcrowding at 90-90a West Road was also a serious concern. That overcrowding, the similar lack of fixed heating and reliance on portable heaters, and the use of stand-alone ovens, significantly increased fire risks and left the occupiers (around 16 adults and five children, it seems) living in unacceptable conditions. It was obvious from the front page of the HMO licence on display that it had expired, and what would be needed. Despite this, and having obtained an HMO licence for 12 Clifftown Road in 2017, and the investigation and action by the Applicant for 12 Clifftown Road since late 2021, the Respondent had made no application for an HMO licence or apparent attempt to deal with the similar risks and deficiencies at 90-90a West Road. That property was unlicensed for a year, from June 2021 to June 2022, when the freeholder arranged their own application and engaged a new agent. The Respondent, it seems, had done nothing.

[49]We have accepted the evidence from the Applicant about these matters. The Respondent produced nothing to challenge it and chose not to cross- examine their witnesses.

[50]The Respondent attempted, in his oral submissions, to give evidence about mitigating matters. Even if we take this into account, it has no weight. If the original complainant tenant was a problem and had covered the alarm detectors with foil, that makes no real difference to the overall severity of the conditions or the need to inspect, manage and maintain an HMO. Tenancy agreements may have been given to fewer people than were actually occupying (it is not unknown for couples to have children, or tenants to attempt to bring in others to share costs) but a manager has to use reasonable endeavours to monitor and control occupation. A new assertion, about false tenancy agreements being used to claim support 13 payments, was made far too late and unsupported. It may be that a property manager working for Lordsons brought in members of his family and friends to occupy 12 Clifftown Road. It is less credible that the Respondent was not aware of some problems there, particularly when Lordsons estate agents were next door but one. If he did not trouble to make himself aware, this makes no real difference to the responsibilities of a manager/landlord. Again, it does not change our overall assessment of the conditions in which people were housed or the culpability of the Respondent.

[51]The Respondent had no previous convictions and had not previously been entered on the database of rogue landlords and property agents. Mr Oatt explained that the Applicant had difficulties accessing the database last year following the departure of staff who had the requisite access credentials, so had not sought to enter the Respondent on the database for the convictions.

[52]In relation to the likely effect of the banning order on the relevant person and anyone else who may be affected by it, the non-statutory guidance refers (at 3.3) to the need to:a. punish the offender (observing that a banning order is a severe sanction; the length of a ban should be proportionate and reflect both the severity of the offence and whether there is a pattern of previous offending, set at a high enough level to remove the worst offenders from the sector, ensure it has a real economic impact on the offender and demonstrate the consequences of not complying with their responsibilities);

b. deter the offender from repeating the offence (making any ban long enough to be likely to do so); and

[53]On 19 October 2023, the Applicant gave notice under section 19 of the 2016 Act requiring information, including all properties currently leased, owned or managed through the Respondent or the Companies and all tenancy/licence agreements. On 6 November 2023, the Respondent and “Lordsons” each replied that the Companies and Chapter 77 Limited: “are exclusively engaged in sales activities, with none of the above companies having management or control of the premises as from 17th May 2023 or date of commencement thereafter in question … This decision is in direct accordance with the recent newsletter release on the City Council website and various prominent media outlets … this decision has been reinforced by the negative press coverage and the recent banning order I have 14 received … I trust that this information adequately addresses any concerns…”.

[54]The Applicant relied on this. They said the Respondent had a newly established overseas agency to earn income even if he was banned here, and could continue to receive income from property sale activities. They said there was no need for transitional provisions for current residential tenancies or winding down a business. They pointed out that 12 Clifftown Road is still subject to the prohibition order, and 90-90a West Road is now licensed by the freeholder and managed by a new agent, without the involvement of the Respondent. However, their evidence also explained that on 29 February 2024 they had discovered that “Lordsons Estates” were advertising six properties (in the same building) to let. The advertisement was dated 22 February 2024 through Zoopla.

[55]The Respondent did not dispute that he was a professional property agent. He said that he would not be managing any properties himself and would focus on sales, but also referred to investment companies. We checked that he understood the wording of the relevant definitions in the 2016 Act. He confirmed he was not carrying out any of the activities which would be banned by the order sought by the Applicant and was not going to associate with anyone who was. The investment companies he had mentioned deal only with commercial lettings. He told us that he was no longer involved in Chapter 77 Limited. He confirmed there had been a lot of negative press coverage following the convictions, so he had decided not to be involved in this type of work. He did not dispute that a banning order should be made, but asked us to consider “suspending” it or minimising the period. Conclusion

[56]We are satisfied that we should make a banning order against the Respondent for all of the potential activities, and that it should be for a period of three years. A longer ban would not be justified by the seriousness of the relevant matters, in view of the limited nature of the actual convictions (some of which have just become spent), the absence of previous convictions, the relatively limited (but it seems proportionate) evidence produced to us and the absence of evidence of problems outside these two properties. However, a shorter ban would not be sufficient. A suspended order certainly would not, even if we had power to make one.

[57]The main purpose of this order is deterrence of the Respondent and others from repeat or similar offending, sending the message that fines/penalties cannot be absorbed as a cost of overcrowding tenants into unsafe and inadequate housing, particularly where fire safety risks are involved, and other enforcement action cannot simply be avoided.

[58]The Respondent did not deny that he had misrepresented to the Applicant that he was the freeholder of 12 Clifftown Road so that he could obtain an HMO licence without the true freeholder being informed. He and his colleagues also misinformed the officers from the Applicant about 15 practical matters when they were seeking to investigate and require improvements. Even if other matters are simply the result of negligence on the part of the Respondent, they were serious and had continued for significant periods of time. The licence condition for 12 Clifftown Road from 2017 requiring overhaul of windows was not complied with years later. Even following the improvement notice, no real remedial works were carried out; instead, the property was emptied or allowed to empty. Similarly, the Respondent simply left, or was removed, following the later enforcement action in relation to 90-90a West Road, with no attempt on his part to licence or deal with the problems at the property.

[59]We are satisfied that the banning order should also ban the Respondent from being involved in any body corporate which carries out any of the banned activities. He has worked through companies as sole or main director and shareholder in the past and appears to have transferred the current trading company to a family member. Without this type of provision, the banning order could be avoided or could be too difficult to enforce, so may not be effective.

[60]The Applicant asked us to make any banning order take effect immediately. We agree that based on what the Respondent told us there should be no transitional provisions or long delay, but we do consider that we should allow a clear week so that the Respondent can make absolutely sure he has no remaining potential involvement in any banned activities or any body corporate that carries out any banned activities. Accordingly, the ban will take effect from 1 July 2024 and end on 30 June 2027. Judge David Wyatt 19 June 2024 Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide 16 whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).