12, Eileen Grove, Rusholme, Manchester M14 5WE MAN/00BN/HNA/2020/0046
DECISION
[1]29 Following the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal reconvened later on 8th July to consider all that it had read in the submissions to it and heard at the hearing.[2]30 The Tribunal is satisfied that the offence of controlling or managing an unlicensed dwelling is made out beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal accepts at face value what the Applicants say about their ignorance of the need for making application for a licence, but emphatically recognises that landlords must be aware of their legal responsibilities in relation to properties that they provide to let.[3]31 The Tribunal moved on to consider the appropriate penalty according to the assessment made by the Council of medium culpability and low harm. The Tribunal notes that the Council’s policy sets a series of steps, or a staircase, at some point upon which the offender’s behaviour is placed. It is not a graph that produces a line referable to the x axis of culpability and the y axis of harm. The Tribunal makes this point as it is of the view that it should not interfere without good reason in the democratic process that has taken place in setting the policy. The culpability of the Applicants is, however on the very boundary between low and medium. It feels able to distinguish between that on the part of owners of a single rented property , who take action as soon as they are alerted to the difficulties that exist and, for example identified in the decision of the Upper Tribunal in London Borough of Waltham v Marshall where the Applicant took longer to join in the application process and, in the Tribunal’s view, from a background likely to indicate a clearer understanding of what was required.[4]32 To the Tribunal’s mind to start at the mid-point in the matrix without assessing the exact extent of culpability first is unfair, otherwise all cases of medium culpability and low harm would start at the same point, before looking at the mitigating factors considered by the Council in respect of the application for the licence and the co-operation proffered. To come to what it believes to be an appropriate outcome the Tribunal accepts a situation in which there is medium culpability, at nearer to, but not at, the lowest level, and low harm, the starting point on the matrix of £6,000.[5]33 It then finds there are no aggravating features. There are however mitigating features correctly identified by the Council. Firstly that a licence is applied for with some speed by the Applicants. (£1,000) and then a further 30% reduction that effectively reflects: 1) No previous convictions or cautions. 2) No relevant civil penalties (at all). 3) An apparent good record of maintaining the property. 4) A likely one-off event (this being the Applicants’ only property to let). 5) No particular suggestion that the offending is motivated by the financial gain of avoiding the cost of a licence. 6) The co-operation provided when the licensing issue is raised[6]34 On the basis of that assessment the result is £6,000.00 Deduct £1,000 for the speedy application £1,000.00 £5,000.00 Deduct 30% credit £1,500.00 Final penalty £3,500.00 in respect of each Applicant[7]35 The Tribunal has not been provided with any significant details as to the financial circumstances of the Applicants and have therefore also considered the likely effect of such penalties from the perspective of rental profit that they may have made from the period during which the property was unlicensed. It is satisfied that this is only one of the considerations that it must take into account and the level of penalty set out above sufficiently weighs that element of profit against the Applicants’ culpability and the relatively insignificant harm caused.