12, Lydford Street, Salford M6 6BJ MAN/00BR/HNA/2024/0041
REASONS
[24]The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has not raised any issues regarding the procedural requirements in respect of the Notice and/or the Final Notice, but it is satisfied that the Respondent has complied with the procedural requirements as required under Schedule 13A to the 2004 Act. Issues for determination by the Tribunal Has an offence been committed?[25]The Tribunal notes as follows:(1) there is no dispute between the parties that, as at the date of the offence, the Property was a bedsit-style HMO occupied by 3 persons and that the Applicant is to be properly regarded as “a person having control” of the Property;(2) further, no dispute was raised by the Applicant regarding the fire safety measures required to be in place at the Property having regard to the nature of its occupation as a bedsit-style HMO;(3) the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant’s evidence of action taken by him to acquaint himself with the necessary fire safety measures for the Property afford him with a reasonable excuse defence to the offence. In particular, the Applicant provided no evidence of having sought any expert advice rather appearing to rely on ad hoc advice from letting agents and/or his own research into eg the LACORS Guidance.[26]Having regard to the matters set out in paragraph 25, the Tribunal is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Applicant’s conduct amounts to an offence under s234 of the 2004 Act. Quantum of the FPN[27]Having regard to the terms of the AGMA Policy, the Tribunal is satisfied as follows:(1) the Respondent’s determination of high harm is appropriate because all of the defects identified related to fire safety measures and the style of occupation of the Property ie bedsit-style HMO with 3 unrelated occupants. In reaching this determination, the Tribunal reiterates that the fact that no actual harm has resulted is not a relevant consideration;(2) the Respondent’s determination of medium (negligent act) culpability is appropriate in all the circumstances. In particular, but without limitation, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is evidence of a failure on the Applicant’s part to take appropriate action to avoid commission of the offence eg by taking action to ensure that he was aware of and/or fully understood the law regarding operation of an HMO. In reaching this determination, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no evidence of any deliberate act on the Applicant’s part.(3) The Tribunal does not consider that any evidence has been presented to it of any aggravating or mitigating factors or of the financial means of the Applicant that should be taken into account.(4) The Tribunal notes that the Respondent’s application of a 30% reduction in the amount of the financial penalty appears to be in accordance with paragraph 5.5 of the AGMA Policy. Determination[28]In accordance with paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 13A to the 2004 Act, the Tribunal confirms the Final Notice imposing a financial penalty of £13650.