a. wrote to the freeholder and stated that an inspection would be carried out on 30 September 2020 and invited the attendance of his representative; and b. served notices of intention to exercise power of entry to premises on the owner and the tenants of Flat 1. 29. On 30 September 2020, the Property was inspected by officers of the Respondent. At this time, those officers indicate that they noted the breaches of the 2007 Regulations. 30. During the inspection on 30 September 2020, Liz Mann, housing standards officer, noted: “a representative attended the inspection to provide access to Flat 1 indicating that his company managed Flat 1 alone. When I asked who controlled the common parts, he stated he did not know.” Ms Mann Provides no further information as to the identity of this representative. 31. On 20 November 2020, the Respondent contacted Manny Yip, a representative of the Appellant. She confirmed the Appellant was the managing agent for the Property and forwarded contact details for the company director, Mr Him Shun Yip. Thereafter, details of the defects were sent to the Appellant, as was an invitation to complete a written interview under caution (a “PACE Interview”). The letter accompanying this invitation explained that the interview was an opportunity for the Appellant to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the regulations. 32. A response to the PACE Interview dated 16 November 2020 was completed by Mr Yip and returned to the Respondent. Mr Yip confirmed that he was a director for the Appellant which took over management of the Property in August 2020. He indicated that the Appellant was responsible for collecting the service charge for the common parts, that they were not aware of any fire safety issues with the building but that the Appellants would be fully responsible for addressing them. He also indicated that should any of the tenants have any issues, they should contact him and that he visits the Property every calendar month. 33. Thereafter, a full case review was conducted to determine the appropriate course of enforcement action and a Notice of Intention to issue a civil penalty was served on 17 March 2021. 34. No formal representations were made to the Notice of Intent. However, the improvements requested were carried out. 35. A further case review is understood to have been carried out and it was determined that a civil penalty was still considered appropriate but with a 30% reduction due to corrective action having been taken in a timely and appropriate manner (prior to service of the final notice), in circumstances where the category of culpability has been assessed as low or medium. 36. A final notice dated 30 April 2021 and signed by Mr Peter Openshaw (the “Final Notice”) was served upon the Appellants. The Final Notice specified breaches of regulation 5(1) and 5 (2) of the 2007 Regulations and a financial penalty notice in the sum of £11,550 was attached to the Final Notice. 37. Within the Final Notice, it was alleged that a Regulatory Services Officer at Salford City Council had inspected Flat 1, 91 Lower Seedley Road for the purposes of issuing an accommodation certificate and, on doing so, had found “a number of defects with regards to health and safety”. As such, the accommodation certificate was refused. This had prompted a further HHSRS inspection of the whole Property. 38. Thereafter, the notice states that an inspection of the whole building had been carried out on 30 September 2020. 39. The Final Notice states that the following breaches regulation 5(1) management regulations (means of fire escape) were identified at the inspection. These are set out in the wording as used in the Final Notice: c. there was evidence of clutter to the escape route on the first-floor landing. d. the cellar fire door was damaged, would not close and had missing cold smoke seals, intumescent strips, and overhead closure. e. the cellar had no compartmentation whatsoever to the ground floor escape route as it had never been boarded out. f. the floorboards and joists along the ground floor escape route which clearly visible from the cellar. Original lathe and plaster were damaged on the stair spandrel 40. The Final Notice states that the following breaches regulation 5 (2) to management regulations (firefighting equipment and fire alarms) were identified at the inspection. These are set out in the wording as used in the Final Notice: g. Lights indicating a fault to alarm system in zone 2. 41. The Respondent states that it is satisfied that the Appellant has committed the offence by failing to take reasonable care to ensure the Property was operating “with the correct licence or exemption” and assesses the harm and culpability as medium for the following reasons: a. medium harm i. no actual physical injury caused but the defects expose occupants/ visitors to a serious risk of harm ii. poorly maintained escape route/cellar fire door in disrepair and not closing/clutter on the escape route/the cellar had no compartmentation to the ground floor - … never been boarded out and the floorboards and joists along the ground floor escape route were visible from the cellar. iii. the Property is an HMO as defined by section 257 of the 2004 Act iv. the harm level was reduced from high as the Property had the correct alarm system. b. medium culpability i. the manager had failed to consult national guidance or take any professional advice regarding the correct specification of the fire safety in the Property despite having the option to commission an independent fire risk assessment if they felt they did not have the understanding or experience. ii. the manager visits the Property every month. As such cannot have failed to see the defects within the Property iii. culpability had been reduced from “high” as the manager had only recently taken over. c. in addition, within the Final Notice, the council accepts that the Appellant has secured all necessary improvements to the Property since receiving the Notice of Intent. As such, a 30% reduction to the penalty as prescribed by the AGMA policy on civil penalties has been applied. 42. The Appellants appealed to this Tribunal by proceedings dated 27 May 2021 but received at the Tribunal on 15 June 2021. A question arose as to whether the appeal had been made in time. 43. In the event that the appeal was made out of time, the Tribunal may only allow it if it is satisfied there was a good reason for not a) making the appeal within time; and b) any delay in applying for permission to appeal out of time. 44. The Appellants representatives were notified of this on 9 December 2021. At this time, they were requested to provide a written explanation within 14 days. As no such written explanation was received, the appeal was struck out by Deputy Regional Judge Holbrook on 12 January 2022. 45. Thereafter, Mr Gooding on behalf of the Appellant contacted the Tribunal explaining that the reason for the delay was a failure to access the link within the 28 day period. As a result, Judge Bennett extended the time for receipt of the Appeal and allowed it to proceed. 46. The Appellant provided a Statement of Case and exhibits by e-mail dated 29 July 2022 and, on 9 August 2022, the Respondent provided a response. Within this Statement of Case, the Appellant stated, for the first time, that: a. the freehold of the Property and the leasehold title of ground floor Flat 1 is owned by Mr Sun Kam. b. that the Appellant was appointed by the landlord to let and manage Flat 1 only. c. that the Appellant’s responsibility includes tenant introduction and day-to-day tenancy management of Flat 1 only. d. That the Appellant is a company offering a professional letting/management service but that its services do not extend to block management. e. Letbid Estate Agents Limited are appointed to manage the Property and the communal areas f. That the fire engineer deemed that the fault displayed on the fire alarm panel was as a result of a minor fault which did not impede the function of the system. 47. By statement in response, again undated and unsigned, the Respondent indicated: a. Letbid Estate Agents Limited as the Property manager had not been referred to previously. b. that the Respondent can only act on information received directly from the Appellant and, at no point, was it advised that it was pursuing the wrong company c. The Respondent states that as the Respondents investigations determined that the Appellant was in control of the building, it was therefore the Appellants responsibility to ensure compliance with the relevant standards. d. The address stated on the contract provided by the Appellant is the Property. 48. From a review of documents EX1, it is noted that the agreement between Mr Sun Kam is stated to relate to the Property. However, it is noted that the terms of the contract appear to relate to the letting of an individual Property. The wording does not lend itself to Property management in relation to a larger apartment block with communal areas. Thus, document EX1 is not in and of itself entirely clear. 49. The Appellant also provided document EX2. This document indicates that Mr Sun Kam appointed Letbid Estate Agents Limited to provide a block management service from 17 June 2020. The contract for services is stated to be for a term of six months minus one day and, thereafter, will continue if not terminated. Therefore, the initial term will have lasted until 15 December 2020 and will cover the period when the Final Notice was served. 50. Irrespective of the above, at the hearing, the Appellant has confirmed, through Mr Eastman, that it acts as property manager for the Property and has been since August 2020. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 51. The grounds of appeal were not readily identifiable from the documentation provided. The Appeal Notice stated only: “We believe the penalty to the defendant is excessive on the basis of the defendant has been cooperative and have promptly dealt with any alleged counterventions” (sic) 52. However, whilst it is not mentioned within the appeal notice, within the PACE Interview, the Appellant states: a. “This property is 3 flat, as far as we notices it is NOT HMO” 53. Finally, within the Appellant's Statement of Case, the Appellant contends that it should not be responsible for the breach as it’s “scope of responsibility ceased outside the confines of the Flat 1 of the address under the agreement, Genesis’ duty as a property manager does not extend to the management of any communal part of the address.” 54. Thus, prior to the hearing, the Tribunal had understood that there were three issues to be determined: a. whether the Property is an HMO which is subject to the 2007 regulations b. whether the Appellant is responsible as property manager. c. Whether the penalty is excessive SUBMISSIONS 55. The hearing of this matter took place at 10:00am on 19 October 2022. At the hearing, the Appellants wereRespondent