Flat 4, 19 Warnor Square North, Southend-On-Sea, SS1 2JN CAM/00KF/HNA/2025/0604

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No CAM/00KF/HNA/2025/0604
Between
Natasha WilliamsApplicantSouthend-on-Sea City CouncilRespondent
Before
Judge MacQueenAndrew Christodoulou, Freelance Solicitor Advocate for the ApplicantSouthend-on-Sea City Council for the RespondentDate 5 September 2025Property: Southend-On-Sea, SS1 2JN

DECISION

[1]Tribunal does not vary the time for the Applicant to have applied to the Tribunal. The application was accordingly made out of time. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction in respect of the application, which is consequently dismissed pursuant to rule 9(2)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.[2]The Tribunal sets out its reasons for this decision. Background[3]The Tribunal received the Applicant’s application to appeal against a financial penalty under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004 on 1 March 2025. The application form was dated 10 December 2024, but the Tribunal records show that the application was not emailed to the Tribunal until 1 March 2025. Further, a copy of the Final Notice was not submitted with the application. As the application could not be progressed without the Final Notice being submitted, the Tribunal requested this from the applicant, and this was received on 12 March 2025.[4]The Improvement Notice to which this appeal relates is dated 7 November 2023. The Respondent confirmed and the Applicant does not dispute that the Financial Penalty was served on the Applicant on 7 November 2023 by email and first-class post. The application to appeal against the Financial Penalty has therefore been made out of time.[5]In light of this, by directions dated 15 July 2025, the Tribunal directed the Applicant to provide an explanation as to why an appeal was not made within the 28 days permitted and provide any evidence that the Applicant relied on to support their application. The Respondent was permitted to provide a reply to the Applicant’s statement.[6]Further the directions dated 15 July 2025 stated that the Tribunal will consider the representations made by the parties and make a paper determination as to whether time to appeal should be extended unless any party requests a hearing by 12 August 2025. The Tribunal did not receive any request for an oral hearing and therefore the Tribunal determined the matter as a paper determination.[7]The Tribunal considered the Applicant’s application for an extension of time dated 10 December 2024, and the email of 29 July 2025. The Tribunal also considered the Respondent’s response dated 1 July 2025 and 13 August 2025. Relevant Law[8]In order for an appeal against a Financial Penalty to be in time, it should have been received within 28 days after the date the Final Notice was sent to the Applicant (rule 27(2) Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (the Rules).[9]The Tribunal has discretion to vary time limits within the Rules. Specifically, rule 8(2) provides that where a party has failed to comply with a requirement in the Rules, the Tribunal may take such action as the Tribunal considers just. Further, by rule 6(3)(a) of the Rules, the Tribunal may extend time for compliance with any rule. Rule 3 states that the overriding objective of the Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly. Rule 3(3) provides that the Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when exercising any power or interpreting any rule under the Rules.[10]Rule 3 provides as follows: “ Overriding objective and parties’ obligation to co-operate with the Tribunal(1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly.(2) Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes— (a) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties and of the Tribunal; (b) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings; (c) ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings; (d) using any special expertise of the Tribunal effectively; and (e) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues.(3) The Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it— (a) exercises any power under these Rules; or (b) interprets any rule or practice direction.” The Applicant’s Representations[11]By submissions dated 10 December 2024, the Applicant asked the Tribunal to extend time under Rule 6(3) applying the “3 stage Denton Test” as follows:a. identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the non-complianceb. consider why the breach occurredc. evaluate all circumstances of the case so the application is dealt with fairly[12]At stage one of the test, the Applicant submitted that the breach was serious and significant. At stage two, the Applicant stated that the breach had occurred as the Respondent Council failed to clearly inform the Applicant of the 28 day time limit for filing an appeal in the documentation she was sent. Specifically, the Applicant submitted that the Final Notice confusingly mentioned an appeal under the “failing to pay” section of the Notice. The Applicant stated that as she was focused on an appeal, she went straight to that section. The Applicant stated that in the appeal section the 28 day time limit was not mentioned and only a hyperlink provided. At stage three, the Applicant submitted specifically that the Appellant is a private individual who is unfamiliar with complex procedure and time limits.[13]The Applicant provided further representations in response to the Tribunal’s directions of 15 July 2025 by email dated 29 July 2025. The email did not contain direct evidence from the Applicant but rather consisted of an email provided by the Applicant’s solicitor. The email stated: “Pursuant to the paragraph 1 of the Direction of Judge MacQueen dated 15 July 2025, I have received my client’s (Natasha Williams) explanation for the delay as follows:…”. The email the set out Natasha William’s representations. The email did not have any accompanying evidence upon which the Applicant sought to rely.[14]In this email, the Applicant submitted that she was aware that the civil penalty had been issued however, she stated that at the time the matter was being handled by her agent, Pier 1 Management, who were liaising directly with the Respondent. The Applicant stated that only after the appeal deadline had passed did she find that the matter had not been resolved and that an appeal had not been filed by the agent. The Applicant submitted that she took prompt steps to seek legal advice and rectify the position. The Applicant further submitted that a case relating to another property (16b Britannia Road) had near identical circumstances but the Applicant submitted that this was handled differently, therefore adding to the confusion and delay. The Respondent’s Position[15]The Respondent submitted that the appeal was woefully out of time. Additionally, the Respondent set out the paragraphs in the Final Notice where the Applicant was informed of their right to appeal and the 28 day appeal time limit. Further, the Respondent submitted that as a matter of public record, the Appellant is currently a director of three property related companies and has nearly 17 years experience in property management. The Respondent submitted that the application for the appeal to be heard out of time should be dismissed. Tribunal’s Decision[16]The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Respondent that the Final Financial Penalty Notice was served on the Applicant by 1st class post an email on 7 November 2023. The Applicant did not make an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) until 1 March 2025, however it was not until 12 March 2025 that the Applicant submitted all the relevant documentation to enable the Tribunal to progress the application. The appeal was therefore out of time.[17]The Applicant referred to the Court of Appeal judgment in Denton v T H White Limited (and other cases) [2014] EWCA Civ 906. Denton does not apply perfectly to this situation as it is a decision made applying the Civil Procedure Rules (the “CPR”) and not the Rules. However, the Tribunal applies the facts of this case to the three stage test as set out in Denton, but applies the Rules.[18]The First Stage of the test is the seriousness and significance of the default in compliance with, in this instance the Rules. The Tribunal finds that the delay in this case in the making of the Applicants’ applications was serious and significant. The time limit for appeal was 28 days, however the applicant submitted her appeal significantly out of time.[19]The Second Stage of the test requires the Tribunal to consider the reason for the default. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s reasons for the delay in submitting the application. With regard to the Applicant’s submissions that she was relying on an agent, the Applicant did not submit any supporting evidence in relation to the agreement she had with her agent. The delay in bringing the application is significant. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that, on the information provided by the Applicant, reliance on her agent provides an explanation as to why there had been such a delay in submitting her appeal.[20]Turing to the Applicant’s contention that the Final Financial Penalty Notice did not provide sufficient detail of the 28-day time limit, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s position. The covering letter dated 7 November 2023 told the Applicant of the right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and provided the address and telephone number of the Tribunal as well as a link to the website. Further, the Final Notice stated: “If you have failed to pay the Financial Penalty and not appealed this notice to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (see APPEAL section below) within 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given to you, it will result in the Council considering all legal options available through its Debt Collection and Recovery policy”.[21]The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s position and finds that the Notice and covering letter sufficiently set out the appeal rights, including the 28 day time limit.[22]Turing to the third Stage, namely a consideration of all the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s position that the Applicant was not provided with sufficient information to enable her to appeal.[23]Turning to a consideration of the Rules, the Tribunal is provided with discretion to extend the time limit for appeal, and the Tribunal has set out the “Relevant Law” section of this decision (above). Specifically, rule 6(3) of the Rules provides the Tribunal with discretion to extend the time limit for the application to be made and rule 8(2) provides that the Tribunal may take such action as considered just when a party fails to comply with a requirement of the Rules. Rule 3(3) requires the Tribunal to seek to give effect to the overriding objective to deal with cases justly and fairly.[24]The Tribunal does not allow the appeal to be made out of time in all the circumstances of the case. The overriding objective, rule 3(2)(e) requires cases to be dealt with avoiding delay, so far as compatible with the proper consideration of the issues. The delay in bringing the appeal is considerable given that the financial penalty notice was dated 7 November 2023 and the application to the Tribunal was not made until March 2025. Given the length of delay, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the parties would be able to participate fully in the proceedings if the appeal is allowed out of time. The length in the delay would mean parties would be required to recall events from 2023. Whilst the Tribunal is able to avoid unnecessary formality and seek flexibility in the proceedings, the Tribunal finds that the delay in bringing the proceedings does not justify the extension of time to submit the appeal.[25]The Tribunal therefore does not vary the time for the application to be made to allow the appeal to be made out of time. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction in respect of the application, which is consequently dismissed pursuant to rule 9(2)(a) of the Rules. Judge Bernadette MacQueen Date: 5 September 2025 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 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 --- 1 FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/00KF/HNA/2025/0604 Property : Flat 4, 19 Warnor Square North, Southend-On-Sea, SS1 2JN Applicant : Natasha Williams Representative : Andrew Christodoulou, Freelance Solicitor Advocate Respondent : Southend-on-Sea City Council Representative : Tess O’Connell, Senior Lawyer, Southend-on-Sea City Council Type of application : Appeal against Financial Penalty paragraph 10 schedule 13A Housing Act 2004 Tribunal : Judge MacQueen Date of order : 5 September 2025 (amended on 16 September 2025 in red) DECISION – REFUSAL TO ALLOW PERMISSION TO APPEAL A FINANCIAL PENALTY NOTICE OUT OF TIME Decision[1]Tribunal does not vary the time for the Applicant to have applied to the Tribunal. The application was accordingly made out of time. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction in respect of the application, which is consequently dismissed pursuant to rule 9(2)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.[2]The Tribunal sets out its reasons for this decision. 2 Background[3]The Tribunal received the Applicant’s application to appeal against a financial penalty under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004 on 1 March 2025. The application form was dated 10 December 2024, but the Tribunal records show that the application was not emailed to the Tribunal until 1 March 2025. Further, a copy of the Final Notice was not submitted with the application. As the application could not be progressed without the Final Notice being submitted, the Tribunal requested this from the applicant, and this was received on 12 March 2025.[4]The Improvement Notice Financial Penalty Notice to which this appeal relates is dated 7 November 2023. The Respondent confirmed and the Applicant does not dispute that the Financial Penalty was served on the Applicant on 7 November 2023 by email and first-class post. The application to appeal against the Financial Penalty has therefore been made out of time.[5]In light of this, by directions dated 15 July 2025, the Tribunal directed the Applicant to provide an explanation as to why an appeal was not made within the 28 days permitted and provide any evidence that the Applicant relied on to support their application. The Respondent was permitted to provide a reply to the Applicant’s statement.[6]Further the directions dated 15 July 2025 stated that the Tribunal will consider the representations made by the parties and make a paper determination as to whether time to appeal should be extended unless any party requests a hearing by 12 August 2025. The Tribunal did not receive any request for an oral hearing and therefore the Tribunal determined the matter as a paper determination. 3[7]The Tribunal considered the Applicant’s application for an extension of time dated 10 December 2024, and the email of 29 July 2025. The Tribunal also considered the Respondent’s response dated 1 July 2025 and 13 August 2025. Relevant Law[8]In order for an appeal against a Financial Penalty to be in time, it should have been received within 28 days after the date the Final Notice was sent to the Applicant (rule 27(2) Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (the Rules).[9]The Tribunal has discretion to vary time limits within the Rules. Specifically, rule 8(2) provides that where a party has failed to comply with a requirement in the Rules, the Tribunal may take such action as the Tribunal considers just. Further, by rule 6(3)(a) of the Rules, the Tribunal may extend time for compliance with any rule. Rule 3 states that the overriding objective of the Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly. Rule 3(3) provides that the Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when exercising any power or interpreting any rule under the Rules.[10]Rule 3 provides as follows: “ Overriding objective and parties’ obligation to co- operate with the Tribunal(1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly.(2) Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes— 4 (a) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties and of the Tribunal; (b) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings; (c) ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings; (d) using any special expertise of the Tribunal effectively; and (e) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues.(3) The Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it— (a) exercises any power under these Rules; or (b) interprets any rule or practice direction.” The Applicant’s Representations[11]By submissions dated 10 December 2024, the Applicant asked the Tribunal to extend time under Rule 6(3) applying the “3 stage Denton Test” as follows:a. identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the non- complianceb. consider why the breach occurredc. evaluate all circumstances of the case so the application is dealt with fairly[12]At stage one of the test, the Applicant submitted that the breach was serious and significant. At stage two, the Applicant stated that the breach had occurred as the Respondent Council failed to clearly inform the Applicant of the 28 day time limit for filing an appeal in the documentation she was sent. Specifically, the Applicant submitted that the Final Notice confusingly mentioned an appeal under the “failing to pay” section of the Notice. The Applicant stated that as she was focused on an appeal, she went straight to that section. The Applicant stated that 5 in the appeal section the 28 day time limit was not mentioned and only a hyperlink provided. At stage three, the Applicant submitted specifically that the Appellant is a private individual who is unfamiliar with complex procedure and time limits.[13]The Applicant provided further representations in response to the Tribunal’s directions of 15 July 2025 by email dated 29 July 2025. The email did not contain direct evidence from the Applicant but rather consisted of an email provided by the Applicant’s solicitor. The email stated: “Pursuant to the paragraph 1 of the Direction of Judge MacQueen dated 15 July 2025, I have received my client’s (Natasha Williams) explanation for the delay as follows:…”. The email the set out Natasha William’s representations. The email did not have any accompanying evidence upon which the Applicant sought to rely.[14]In this email, the Applicant submitted that she was aware that the civil penalty had been issued however, she stated that at the time the matter was being handled by her agent, Pier 1 Management, who were liaising directly with the Respondent. The Applicant stated that only after the appeal deadline had passed did she find that the matter had not been resolved and that an appeal had not been filed by the agent. The Applicant submitted that she took prompt steps to seek legal advice and rectify the position. The Applicant further submitted that a case relating to another property (16b Britannia Road) had near identical circumstances but the Applicant submitted that this was handled differently, therefore adding to the confusion and delay. The Respondent’s Position[15]The Respondent submitted that the appeal was woefully out of time. Additionally, the Respondent set out the paragraphs in the Final Notice where the Applicant was informed of their right to appeal and the 28 day appeal time limit. Further, the Respondent submitted that as a matter 6 of public record, the Appellant is currently a director of three property related companies and has nearly 17 years experience in property management. The Respondent submitted that the application for the appeal to be heard out of time should be dismissed. Tribunal’s Decision[16]The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Respondent that the Final Financial Penalty Notice was served on the Applicant by 1st class post an email on 7 November 2023. The Applicant did not make an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) until 1 March 2025, however it was not until 12 March 2025 that the Applicant submitted all the relevant documentation to enable the Tribunal to progress the application. The appeal was therefore out of time.[17]The Applicant referred to the Court of Appeal judgment in Denton v T H White Limited (and other cases) [2014] EWCA Civ 906. Denton does not apply perfectly to this situation as it is a decision made applying the Civil Procedure Rules (the “CPR”) and not the Rules. However, the Tribunal applies the facts of this case to the three stage test as set out in Denton, but applies the Rules.[18]The First Stage of the test is the seriousness and significance of the default in compliance with, in this instance the Rules. The Tribunal finds that the delay in this case in the making of the Applicants’ applications was serious and significant. The time limit for appeal was 28 days, however the applicant submitted her appeal significantly out of time.[19]The Second Stage of the test requires the Tribunal to consider the reason for the default. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s reasons for the delay in submitting the application. With regard to the Applicant’s submissions that she was relying on an agent, the Applicant did not submit any supporting evidence in relation to the agreement she had with her agent. The delay in bringing the application is significant. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that, on the information provided by 7 the Applicant, reliance on her agent provides an explanation as to why there had been such a delay in submitting her appeal.[20]Turing to the Applicant’s contention that the Final Financial Penalty Notice did not provide sufficient detail of the 28-day time limit, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s position. The covering letter dated 7 November 2023 told the Applicant of the right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and provided the address and telephone number of the Tribunal as well as a link to the website. Further, the Final Notice stated: “If you have failed to pay the Financial Penalty and not appealed this notice to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (see APPEAL section below) within 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given to you, it will result in the Council considering all legal options available through its Debt Collection and Recovery policy”.[21]The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s position and finds that the Notice and covering letter sufficiently set out the appeal rights, including the 28 day time limit.[22]Turing to the third Stage, namely a consideration of all the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s position that the Applicant was not provided with sufficient information to enable her to appeal.[23]Turning to a consideration of the Rules, the Tribunal is provided with discretion to extend the time limit for appeal, and the Tribunal has set out the “Relevant Law” section of this decision (above). Specifically, rule 6(3) of the Rules provides the Tribunal with discretion to extend the time limit for the application to be made and rule 8(2) provides that the Tribunal may take such action as considered just when a party fails to comply with a requirement of the Rules. Rule 3(3) requires the Tribunal 8 to seek to give effect to the overriding objective to deal with cases justly and fairly.[24]The Tribunal does not allow the appeal to be made out of time in all the circumstances of the case. The overriding objective, rule 3(2)(e) requires cases to be dealt with avoiding delay, so far as compatible with the proper consideration of the issues. The delay in bringing the appeal is considerable given that the financial penalty notice was dated 7 November 2023 and the application to the Tribunal was not made until March 2025. Given the length of delay, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the parties would be able to participate fully in the proceedings if the appeal is allowed out of time. The length in the delay would mean parties would be required to recall events from 2023. Whilst the Tribunal is able to avoid unnecessary formality and seek flexibility in the proceedings, the Tribunal finds that the delay in bringing the proceedings does not justify the extension of time to submit the appeal.[25]The Tribunal therefore does not vary the time for the application to be made to allow the appeal to be made out of time. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction in respect of the application, which is consequently dismissed pursuant to rule 9(2)(a) of the Rules. Judge Bernadette MacQueen Date: 5 September 2025 9 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 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_3.pdf --- © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/00KF/HNA/2025/0604 Property : Flat 4, 19 Warnor Square North, Southend-On-Sea, SS1 2JN Applicant : Natasha Joy Williams Representative : Andrew Christodoulou, Freelance Solicitor Advocate Respondent : Southend-on-Sea City Council Representative : Tess O’Connell, Senior Lawyers, Southend-on Type of application : Application for permission to appeal Tribunal member : Judge Bernadette MacQueen Date of decision : 16 September 2025 DECISION REFUSING PERMISSION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL[1]The tribunal has considered the applicant’s request for permission to appeal dated 16 September 2025 and determines that:(a) it will not review its decision; and(b) permission be refused.[2]You may make a further application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Any such application must be made no later than 14 days after the date on which the First-tier Tribunal sent notice of this refusal to the party applying for permission to appeal. 2[3]Where possible, you should make your further application for permission to appeal on-line using the Upper Tribunal’s on-line document filing system, called CE-File. This will enable the Upper Tribunal to deal with it more efficiently and will enable you to follow the progress of your application and submit any additional documents quickly and easily. Information about how to register to use CE-File can be found by going to this web address: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/20230927- PD-UT-Lands-Chamber-CE-File.pdf[4]Alternatively, you can submit your application for permission to appeal by email to: Lands@justice.gov.uk.[5]The Upper Tribunal can also be contacted by post or by telephone at: Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 5th Floor, Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL (Tel: 020 7612 9710).

REASONS

[6]The test for whether to grant permission to appeal is whether there is a realistic prospect of success.[7]In the present case, the tribunal does not consider that any ground of appeal has a realistic prospect of success.[8]For the benefit of the parties and the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), the tribunal records below its comments on the grounds of appeal and any procedural points raised. Background[9]The Tribunal did not extend time for an appeal against a financial penalty notice to be made. The financial penalty notice to which this appeal relates is dated 7 November 2023.[10]The Tribunal received the Applicant’s appeal against the financial penalty on 1 March 2025.[11]Following representations received from both parties, the Tribunal determined that it would not extend the time for the appeal against the financial penalty notice to be made. The Tribunal set out its reasons for this decision in its decision dated 5 September 2025. Grounds of appeal[12]By application dated 16 September 2025, the Applicant applied for permission to appeal. At section 5 of the application, the Applicant stated that the appeal is made under grounds (a) to (e). However, the Applicant has not provided any reasons to support these grounds. The only reason for appeal that the Applicant has given at section 5 of the appeal form is that the appeal is made because by refusing to extend 3 time, the Applicant submits that the tribunal is effectively making lawful something which the Applicant states is unlawful.[13]The Tribunal has set out its reasons for refusing the extension of time in its decision of 5 September 2025. In summary the Tribunal found that the appeal was significantly out of time (as set out at paragraphs 16 to 18 of the Tribunal’s decision). The Tribunal did not accept the Applicant’s reasons for delay in submitting the application (as set out at paragraphs 19 to 21 of the Tribunal’s decision). Further, the Tribunal considered the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013 and determined that in all the circumstances of the case, the time for appeal should not be extended (as set out at paragraphs 22 to 25 of the Tribunal’s decision). Name: Judge Bernadette MacQueen Date: 16 September 2025