his home at 56 Mowbray Road, Cambridge and a property known as Hill Trees, Babraham Road, Great Shelford, in South Cambridgeshire. The council was unaware of any current lettings at either property but was concerned that the caravan had been towed from Perne Road to Hill Trees, where there were several other caravans in the grounds. 23. In terms of the procedural requirements, the Notice of Intention was served on 13 December 2023, within 4 months of the convictions. It relied on the conviction for the PEA offence, which is a banning order offence and proposed a period of 10 years. It also gave Mr Sanderson until 24 January 2024 to make representations. Mr Sanderson replied by letter dated 16 February 2024, confirming that the only properly with residential use owned by him was 56 Mowbray Road. 24. The application for a banning order was made on 12 March 2024. 25. In all the circumstances, Mr Williams asserted that a banning order should be made for 10 years. Mr Sanderson’s response 26. As stated above, Mr Sanderson had submitted several hand-written letters as his “bundle” in support of his position, together with a final letter the day before the hearing. Unfortunately, those letters are rather difficult to read, save that he denied the offences, claimed Mr Shah had been a squatter and had lied to Cambridge CC in order to try and obtain housing from them. He also made allegations about the behaviour of Ms Barker and the magistrate who convicted him of the latest offences. 27. His only income was his pension of £89 per week. He is 80 and in poor health, suffering from post-traumatic stress since childhood and very isolated following the death of his daughter 18 months ago. He had previously suggested that he wished to share his property at 56 Mowbray Road, rent-free, with a contribution towards the bills. Cambridge CC had stated that they considered this would still be a “letting” and in breach of any banning order, they also had more general concerns given the previous condition of the property. The tribunal’s decision 28. The tribunal is satisfied that justice cannot be done without evidence of Mr Sanderson’s convictions and therefore will admit evidence of all of the convictions mentioned in this decision pursuant to section 7(3) of the 1974 Act. With that evidence in mind, the question for the tribunal is whether to make a banning order and if so, on what terms. For the avoidance of doubt, the tribunal is also satisfied that Mr Sanderson was a landlord at the time of the new banning order offences and that Cambridge CC has met the procedural requirements in the 2016 Act. 29. The first consideration is therefore the seriousness of the banning order offence(s). Although the Notice of Intention appeared to make reference to only one offence under the PEA, the tribunal considers that Cambridge CC can rely on two and the fine for both of £5,000. We consider that any offence under the PEA is serious, with the unlawful interruption of water and electricity and personal threats to Mr Shah both aggravating factors. 30. Mr Sanderson has one previous conviction for a banning order offence and had also been included in the database of rogue landlords following the first banning order. The fact that he was convicted of breaching that banning order is also a relevant consideration, despite that not being categorised as a banning order offence itself. 31. That leaves the likely effect of a further banning order on Mr Sanderson and anyone else who may be affected by the order. There is no evidence of anyone else being affected. Mr Sanderson has stated that he lives on his own and has not given any evidence of other lettings at 56 Mowbray Road or Hill Trees. In fact, he agreed not to enter into any lettings as a condition of the final hearing being adjourned. The tribunal acknowledges that he is now 80 years old and in poor health. He has also stated that he is socially isolated. 32. It is clear that banning orders are aimed at the most serious offenders who rent out unsafe and substandard accommodation. There is overwhelming evidence that 136 Perne Road was both unsafe and substandard. Ms Barker also gave evidence that 56 Mowbray Road was in a very poor state when last inspected by Cambridge CC. Given the evidence in this case and in particular the evidence of the convictions against Mr Sanderson, the tribunal considers that a further banning order is appropriate but for 5 rather than 10 years given Mr Sanderson’s age and ill health. As before, the order will note Mr Sanderson’s birth name. 33. Finally, the tribunal considered whether any exception should be made to allow Mr Sanderson to share his home with others but decided that this would not be appropriate in the light of his convictions and the clear evidence of his failure to appreciate the current standards for landlords of rented accommodation. He should note that “letting” includes occupants under a licence such as lodgers, meaning that such arrangements would also be in breach of the banning order and could lead to further criminal proceedings against him. Name: Regional Judge Wayte Date: 4 November 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 CAM/12UB/HBA/2024/0003
DECISION
Decision of the tribunal The tribunal has decided to make a Banning Order for 5 years in the terms set out in the order sent to the parties with this decision. In the absence of any information as to current lettings, the Banning Order will take effect from 17 November 2025. The application[1]On 12 March 2024, the tribunal received an application from Cambridge City Council for a banning order against Mr Sanderson under section 15 of the 2016 Act.[2]Cambridge CC had previously obtained a banning order against Mr Sanderson in case reference CAM/12UB/HNA/2021/0004 which was due to expire on 23 September 2024. This new application relied on three convictions under the Protection of Eviction Act 1977 dated 12 September 2024 (while the previous banning order was in place), following proceedings at Peterborough Magistrates Court, to justify a further banning order for a least 10 years.[3]Directions were issued on 2 May 2024 with a view to the hearing taking place before the expiry of the previous banning order. The hearing was originally listed for 5 September 2024. Mr Sanderson made an application for an adjournment of that hearing on the grounds of ill-health, which was initially refused but subsequently granted, following the submission of additional medical evidence by Mr Sanderson who also agreed not to let his property pending the relisted hearing.[4]In April 2025 Judge Wayte took steps to relist the hearing as there was no evidence that Mr Sanderson’s condition would change and Cambridge CC wished to proceed with their application. The hearing was listed on 8 July 2025 but was again adjourned after Mr Sanderson provided evidence of a hospital procedure which was due to be carried out on 2 July 2025 (but did not actually take place). Mr Sanderson also advised that his appeal to the Crown Court of his convictions was listed for 20 October 2025. The hearing of this application was therefore fixed for 28 October 2025 at Cambridge Magistrates Court.[5]Mr Sanderson made no further applications to adjourn the hearing, although on 27 October 2025 he hand-delivered a letter to the tribunal confirming that he would not be attending the hearing due to ill health. His letter set out his defence and a copy was given to Cambridge CC at the hearing. Mr Sanderson had also previously provided a handwritten “bundle” of letters, setting out further grounds for resisting the banning order, including his reasons for appealing his convictions.[6]As indicated the day before, Mr Sanderson did not attend Cambridge Magistrates Court for the final hearing. The tribunal were advised by Mr Williams, a barrister representing Cambridge CC, that Mr Sanderson had also withdrawn his criminal appeal on 17 October 2025. In view of the history of the matter, the tribunal were satisfied that it was in accordance with the overriding objective for the hearing to proceed in Mr Sanderson’s absence. The law[7]Sections 14-27 of the 2016 Act contain the provisions in respect of banning orders. In summary, a local housing authority (“LHA”) may apply to the tribunal for a banning order against a person who has been convicted of a banning order offence and who was a residential landlord or property agent at the time the offence was committed.[8]Before applying for a banning order and within 6 months of the date of the conviction, the authority must give the person a notice of intended proceedings. This notice must give the reasons for the application, state the length of the proposed ban and invite representations within a period of not less than 28 days (“the notice period”) (section 15(3) of the 2016 Act).[9]In deciding whether to make a banning order the tribunal must consider:-(a) the seriousness of the offence of which the person has been convicted,(b) any previous convictions that the person has for a banning order offence,(c) whether the person is or has at any time been included in the database of rogue landlords and property agents, and(d) the likely effect of the banning order on the person and anyone else who may be affected by the order (section 16(4) of the 2016 Act).[10]The effect of a banning order is severe, preventing a person from lawfully letting housing or engaging in letting agency or property management work in England. A banning order may also include provision banning the person from being involved in any company that carries out such an activity. Breaching a banning order is an offence and may also give rise to a financial penalty. The LHA must also enter the name of any person with a banning order in its rogue landlord database.[11]The government department responsible for housing regulation, the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), published guidance in respect of banning orders in April 2018. It is good practice for a LHA to follow that guidance and the tribunal may also take it into account when coming to its decision. That guidance states at paragraph 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”. Cambridge CC’s application[12]The applicant relied on the evidence of Emma Barker, a technical officer in their Residential Team and two bundles provided in accordance with the tribunal’s directions: a bundle prepared for the banning order application and a copy of the prosecution file for the criminal proceedings.[13]Ms Barker had previously given evidence against Mr Sanderson when the council obtained its first banning order, relying on his guilty plea for breaching an improvement notice issued in respect of his property at 136 Perne Road, Cambridge, a three-bedroom semi-detached house. At the hearing of that application, Mr Sanderson had stated that there was only one tenant left at the property, a Richard Gidongo, who would be leaving on 18 March 2022. The tribunal had therefore issued a banning order with a commencement date of 24 March 2022.[14]On 8 June 2022, Ms Barker spoke to Mr Shah, who stated that he had been a tenant of Mr Sanderson at 136 Perne Road since 2016. He lived in a caravan in the garden of that property, sharing that accommodation with Richard Gidongo. Mr Shah stated that his electricity and water had been cut off by Mr Sanderson on 1 June 2022, who was harassing him to leave the property as it was due to be sold.[15]After Cambridge CC spoke to Mr Sanderson, he reinstated the water and electricity the following day but then moved into the caravan himself. Mr Shah left the caravan on 15 June 2022 as he said he was too scared to remain, having been threatened by Mr Sanderson, who had also disposed of some of his belongings. 136 Perne Road was subsequently sold and has been redeveloped for use as an HMO by its new owner.[16]Mr Sanderson was convicted on 12 September 2023 of three offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (“PEA”), the breach of the banning order referred to above and two offences of unlawfully obstructing council officers. He was fined £2,500 for each of two of the PEA offences, which Cambridge CC relied on as banning order offences to justify their application for a further banning order. He was also fined £3,000 for the offence of breaching his original banning order. No additional penalties were levied in respect of the third PEA offence or the two offences of obstructing the council’s officers, although Mr Sanderson was also ordered to pay £10,000 towards the council’s costs of enforcement.[17]Mr Williams asserted that the conviction provided evidence that Mr Sanderson had been a landlord at the time he committed those offences (8 and 14 June 2022) as the court must have been satisfied that Mr Shah was a “residential occupier” as defined by the PEA in order to convict him. The court had also convicted Mr Sanderson of a breach of the banning order and must therefore have been satisfied that he was letting property in breach of that order.[18]In addition to the convictions, Mr Willliams pointed to the evidence of Mr Shah in the prosecution file and that of Ms Barker, each of which further supported the assertion that Mr Sanderson was a landlord at the time of the banning order offences.[19]Addressing the requirements of the 2016 Act, Mr Williams asserted that the offences under the PEA were serious. Mr Shah had been unlawfully deprived of water and electricity, frightened by the further actions of Mr Sanderson moving into the caravan and deprived of his personal property by him. The fines of £2, 500 for each of two of the offences were not insignificant.[20]Due to the delay in bringing this application to a final hearing, the convictions were now “spent” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Mr Williams argued that the tribunal should make an order under section 7(3) of the 1974 Act to permit evidence of the convictions as Cambridge had acted promptly to bring the proceedings and any delay was at the behest of Mr Sanderson. In those circumstances, justice could not be done without admitting evidence of the convictions. That evidence should also include the previous conviction which triggered the first banning order.[21]Mr Sanderson had been placed on the Rogue Landlord database on April 2022.[22]Mr Sanderson had provided no evidence of as to the likely effect on him or others of a new banning order. Despite the sale of 136 Perne Road, he still owns two properties: his home at 56 Mowbray Road, Cambridge and a property known as Hill Trees, Babraham Road, Great Shelford, in South Cambridgeshire. The council was unaware of any current lettings at either property but was concerned that the caravan had been towed from Perne Road to Hill Trees, where there were several other caravans in the grounds.[23]In terms of the procedural requirements, the Notice of Intention was served on 13 December 2023, within 4 months of the convictions. It relied on the conviction for the PEA offence, which is a banning order offence and proposed a period of 10 years. It also gave Mr Sanderson until 24 January 2024 to make representations. Mr Sanderson replied by letter dated 16 February 2024, confirming that the only properly with residential use owned by him was 56 Mowbray Road.[24]The application for a banning order was made on 12 March 2024.[25]In all the circumstances, Mr Williams asserted that a banning order should be made for 10 years. Mr Sanderson’s response[26]As stated above, Mr Sanderson had submitted several hand-written letters as his “bundle” in support of his position, together with a final letter the day before the hearing. Unfortunately, those letters are rather difficult to read, save that he denied the offences, claimed Mr Shah had been a squatter and had lied to Cambridge CC in order to try and obtain housing from them. He also made allegations about the behaviour of Ms Barker and the magistrate who convicted him of the latest offences.[27]His only income was his pension of £89 per week. He is 80 and in poor health, suffering from post-traumatic stress since childhood and very isolated following the death of his daughter 18 months ago. He had previously suggested that he wished to share his property at 56 Mowbray Road, rent-free, with a contribution towards the bills. Cambridge CC had stated that they considered this would still be a “letting” and in breach of any banning order, they also had more general concerns given the previous condition of the property. The tribunal’s decision[28]The tribunal is satisfied that justice cannot be done without evidence of Mr Sanderson’s convictions and therefore will admit evidence of all of the convictions mentioned in this decision pursuant to section 7(3) of the 1974 Act. With that evidence in mind, the question for the tribunal is whether to make a banning order and if so, on what terms. For the avoidance of doubt, the tribunal is also satisfied that Mr Sanderson was a landlord at the time of the new banning order offences and that Cambridge CC has met the procedural requirements in the 2016 Act.[29]The first consideration is therefore the seriousness of the banning order offence(s). Although the Notice of Intention appeared to make reference to only one offence under the PEA, the tribunal considers that Cambridge CC can rely on two and the fine for both of £5,000. We consider that any offence under the PEA is serious, with the unlawful interruption of water and electricity and personal threats to Mr Shah both aggravating factors.[30]Mr Sanderson has one previous conviction for a banning order offence and had also been included in the database of rogue landlords following the first banning order. The fact that he was convicted of breaching that banning order is also a relevant consideration, despite that not being categorised as a banning order offence itself.[31]That leaves the likely effect of a further banning order on Mr Sanderson and anyone else who may be affected by the order. There is no evidence of anyone else being affected. Mr Sanderson has stated that he lives on his own and has not given any evidence of other lettings at 56 Mowbray Road or Hill Trees. In fact, he agreed not to enter into any lettings as a condition of the final hearing being adjourned. The tribunal acknowledges that he is now 80 years old and in poor health. He has also stated that he is socially isolated.[32]It is clear that banning orders are aimed at the most serious offenders who rent out unsafe and substandard accommodation. There is overwhelming evidence that 136 Perne Road was both unsafe and substandard. Ms Barker also gave evidence that 56 Mowbray Road was in a very poor state when last inspected by Cambridge CC. Given the evidence in this case and in particular the evidence of the convictions against Mr Sanderson, the tribunal considers that a further banning order is appropriate but for 5 rather than 10 years given Mr Sanderson’s age and ill health. As before, the order will note Mr Sanderson’s birth name.[33]Finally, the tribunal considered whether any exception should be made to allow Mr Sanderson to share his home with others but decided that this would not be appropriate in the light of his convictions and the clear evidence of his failure to appreciate the current standards for landlords of rented accommodation. He should note that “letting” includes occupants under a licence such as lodgers, meaning that such arrangements would also be in breach of the banning order and could lead to further criminal proceedings against him. Name: Regional Judge Wayte Date: 4 November 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/12UB/HBA/2024/0003 Applicant : Cambridge City Council Respondent : Paul Sanderson Tribunal members : Regional Judge Wayte Regional Surveyor Hardman Date of Order : 4 November 2025 BANNING ORDER[1]In accordance with section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the “Act”), (1) MR PAUL SANDERSON (birth name Fleet Stotaer Cooke) is BANNED from each of the following: (a) letting housing (see note D below) in England; (b) engaging in English letting agency work (see note E below); and (c) engaging in English property management work (see note F below).[2]Pursuant to section 18 of the Act, MR PAUL SANDERSON IS ALSO BANNED from being involved (see note G below) in any body corporate that carries out any of the activities described in paragraph 1 of this Order.[3]The length of this ban is for 5 years starting on and including 17 November 2025 and ending on and including 16 November 2030.[4]Expressions used in this Order are defined in the Act. Please refer to the explanatory notes below. 2 NOTES(a) (A) A person who breaches a banning order commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment, or a fine, or both (section 21 of the Act). Alternatively, a local housing authority may impose a financial penalty of up to £30,000 on a person whose conduct amounts to that offence (section 23 of the Act).(b) (B) A person who is subject to a banning order that includes a ban on letting may not make an unauthorised transfer of an estate in land to a prohibited person (section 27 of the Act).(c) (C) A breach of a banning order does not affect the validity or enforceability of any provision of a tenancy or other contract (section 24 of the Act).(d) (D) The expressions “housing” and “letting” have the meanings given to them by section 56 of the Act. At the date of this Order, these are: “housing” means a building, or part of a building, occupied or intended to be occupied as a dwelling or as more than one dwelling; “letting”— (a) includes the grant of a licence, but (b) except in Chapter 4, does not include the grant of a tenancy or licence for a term of more than 21 years, and “let” is to be read accordingly;(e) (E) The expression “English letting agency work” has the meaning given to it by section 54 of the Act. At the date of this Order, this is: (3) In this Part “letting agency work” means things done by a person in the course of a business in response to instructions received from— (a) a person (“a prospective landlord”) seeking to find another person to whom to let housing, or (b) a person (“a prospective tenant”) seeking to find housing to rent. (4) But “letting agency work” does not include any of the following things when done by a person who does nothing else within subsection (3)— (a) publishing advertisements or disseminating information; (b) providing a means by which a prospective landlord or a prospective tenant can, in response to an advertisement or dissemination of information, make direct contact with a prospective tenant or a prospective landlord; (c) providing a means by which a prospective landlord and a prospective tenant can communicate directly with each other. 3 (5) In this Part “English letting agency work” means letting agency work that relates to housing in England.(f) (F) The expression “English property management work” has the meaning given to it by section 55 of the Act. At the date of this Order, this is: (3) In this Part “English property management work” means things done by a person in the course of a business in response to instructions received from another person (“the client”) where— (a) the client wishes the person to arrange services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance in respect of, or to deal with any other aspect of the management of, premises on the client's behalf, and (b) the premises consist of housing in England let under a tenancy.(g) (G) For the purpose of paragraph 2 of this Order, a person is “involved” in a body corporate if the person acts as an officer of the body corporate or directly or indirectly takes part in or is concerned in the management of the body corporate (section 18(2) of the Act).(h) (H) This Order is made for the reasons set out in the decision notice which is being sent to the parties at the same time as this Order.(i) (I) At the date of this Order, section 20 of the Act provided as follows: (1) A person against whom a banning order is made may apply to the First-tier Tribunal for an order under this section revoking or varying the order. (2) If the banning order was made on the basis of one or more convictions all of which are overturned on appeal, the First- tier Tribunal must revoke the banning order. (3) If the banning order was made on the basis of more than one conviction and some of them (but not all) have been overturned on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal may— (a) vary the banning order, or (b) revoke the banning order. (4) If the banning order was made on the basis of one or more convictions that have become spent, the First-tier Tribunal may— (a) vary the banning order, or (b) revoke the banning order. (5) The power to vary a banning order under subsection (3)(a) or (4)(a) may be used to add new exceptions to a ban or to vary— 4 (a) the banned activities, (b) the length of a ban, or (c) existing exceptions to a ban. (6) In this section “spent”, in relation to a conviction, means spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.