Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Mr R. Coriston, Council LegalRespondent
Before
Judge C. P. Tonge, LLB, BA.Mr N. Swain FAAV, MRICS.Date 22 March 2023Property: 397 Stockport Road West, Bredbury, Stockport, SK6 2BGType of application: Appeal Against a Financial Penalty, section 249 A, section 95(1) and Paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 A of The Housing Act 2004.
DECISION
[1]Ms Brown "the Appellant", has been at all times relevant to this case, the freeholder and manager of 397 Stockport Road West, Bredbury, Stockport, SK6 2BG "the property". By an application, dated 5 May 2021 and received by the tribunal office 9 May 2021, the Appellant appeals against the issue of a financial penalty of £20,000 imposed by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council "the Respondent", under sections 249 A and Paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 A of The Housing Act 2004, "the Act".[2]The financial penalty is imposed by two Final Notices, dated 18 March 2021. The first alleges that the Appellant having control or management of a House in Multiple Occupation “an HMO” which was required to be licenced under section 61 of the Act had failed to apply for such a licence, contrary to section 72 of the Act. After mitigating factors had been taken into account the penalty imposed was £5,000.[3]The second Final Notice alleges that the Appellant had management or control of an HMO and failed to take safety measures contrary to Regulation 4 of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 “Regulation 4”, stating four such breaches had occurred, contrary to section 234 of the Act. After mitigating factors had been taken into account the penalty imposed was £15,000.[4]The Tribunal initially concluded that this appeal was out of time, but after considering this issue more thoroughly decided that the Appellant was not at fault for the delay and accepted the appeal.[5]The appeal is raised on the grounds that the Appellant submits that the property, although being an " HMO", does not require a licence because the number of resident tenants did not at any point relevant to this case exceed 4 persons. Alternatively, if an offence pursuant to section 72 of the Act has been committed, it was for a very short period of time. Further, that the faults relied upon as being contrary to Regulation 4 have been exaggerated in their seriousness and that both offences (if committed at all) should be of low culpability and harm, such that the financial penalties are too high. Further, that the financial penalties do not give sufficient weight to the mitigating circumstances, including financial hardship, that are relied upon by the Appellant.[6]The alleged offences are said to have been committed between 31 January 2020 and 2 July 2020.[7]The Appellant has served a hearing bundle that includes a witness statement from the Appellant, a statement of reasons, photographs, exhibits intended to show that the Appellant has complied with requests from the Respondent in the past, exhibits generally and a large amount of exhibits relating to financial and life hardship, including a letter from the Appellants counsellor in the area of psychotherapy, Mandy James, establishing that the Appellant has been suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This is placed into sections A to E, each section being individually paginated, being over 240 pages. Additionally, the Tribunal has viewed five videos submitted by the Appellant, two of which show that one of her tenants was abusive towards the Appellant (in her absence) and demonstrated offensive behaviour. The other three show that the property was kept in a tidy condition at the time that the videos were made.[8]The Respondent has served a bundle that includes witness statements from the officer in charge of the case, Mr David James Threlfall, a Housing Standards Officer employed by the Respondent, a statement of reasons, and 43 exhibits, including statements from the tenants, (Mario) Murat Barut, Parosh Douris, Argyro Andreadaki, Adrian Vlada, Mark Tonkin and Emma Smith, paginated to 382 pages. The Respondents then served a smaller bundle of evidence containing exhibit SM1, an application by the Appellant for a possession order against the tenant Mark Tonkin and the associated witness statement made by the Appellant and a Response to the Appellants bundle, that is not paginated.[9]The written evidence is of substantial length and will only now be referred to where necessary during the determination of the issues in the case. The Law The Housing Act 2004 Section 249A Financial penalties for certain housing offences in England (1)The local housing authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person's conduct amounts to a relevant housing offence in respect of premises in England. (2)In this section “relevant housing offence” means an offence under— (a)section 30 (failure to comply with improvement notice), (b)section 72 (licensing of HMOs), (c)section 95 (licensing of houses under Part 3), (d)section 139(7) (failure to comply with overcrowding notice), or (e)section 234 (management regulations in respect of HMOs). (3)Only one financial penalty under this section may be imposed on a person in respect of the same conduct. (4)The amount of a financial penalty imposed under this section is to be determined by the local housing authority, but must not be more than £30,000. (5)The local housing authority may not impose a financial penalty in respect of any conduct amounting to a relevant housing offence if— (a)the person has been convicted of the offence in respect of that conduct, or (b)criminal proceedings for the offence have been instituted against the person in respect of the conduct and the proceedings have not been concluded. (6)Schedule 13A deals with— (a)the procedure for imposing financial penalties, (b)appeals against financial penalties, (c)enforcement of financial penalties, and (d)guidance in respect of financial penalties. (7)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how local housing authorities are to deal with financial penalties recovered. (8)The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the amount specified in subsection (4) to reflect changes in the value of money. (9)For the purposes of this section a person's conduct includes a failure to act. Section 72 Offences in relation to licensing of HMOs (1)A person commits an offence if he is a person having control of or managing an HMO which is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 61(1)) but is not so licensed. (5)In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (3) it is a defence that he had a reasonable excuse— (a)for having control of or managing the house in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1), or (b)for permitting the person to occupy the house, or (c)for failing to comply with the condition, as the case may be. (6)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine. (7A)See also section 249A (financial penalties as alternative to prosecution for certain housing offences in England). (7B)If a local housing authority has imposed a financial penalty on a person under section 249A in respect of conduct amounting to an offence under this section the person may not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the conduct. Section 234 Management regulations in respect of HMOs (1)The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision for the purpose of ensuring that, in respect of every house in multiple occupation of a description specified in the regulations— (a)there are in place satisfactory management arrangements; and (b)satisfactory standards of management are observed. (2)The regulations may, in particular— (a)impose duties on the person managing a house in respect of the repair, maintenance, cleanliness and good order of the house and facilities and equipment in it; (b)impose duties on persons occupying a house for the purpose of ensuring that the person managing the house can effectively carry out any duty imposed on him by the regulations. (3)A person commits an offence if he fails to comply with a regulation under this section. (4)In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (3) it is a defence that he had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the regulation. (5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (3) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. (6)See also section 249A (financial penalties as alternative to prosecution for certain housing offences in England). (7)If a local housing authority has imposed a financial penalty on a person under section 249A in respect of conduct amounting to an offence under this section the person may not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the conduct. Section 254 Meaning of “house in multiple occupation” (1)For the purposes of this Act a building or a part of a building is a “house in multiple occupation” if— (a)it meets the conditions in subsection (2) (“the standard test”); (b)it meets the conditions in subsection (3) (“the self-contained flat test”); (c)it meets the conditions in subsection (4) (“the converted building test”); (d)an HMO declaration is in force in respect of it under section 255; or (e)it is a converted block of flats to which section 257 applies. (2)A building or a part of a building meets the standard test if— (a)it consists of one or more units of living accommodation not consisting of a self-contained flat or flats; (b)the living accommodation is occupied by persons who do not form a single household (see section 258); (c)the living accommodation is occupied by those persons as their only or main residence or they are to be treated as so occupying it (see section 259); (d)their occupation of the living accommodation constitutes the only use of that accommodation; (e)rents are payable or other consideration is to be provided in respect of at least one of those persons' occupation of the living accommodation; and (f)two or more of the households who occupy the living accommodation share one or more basic amenities or the living accommodation is lacking in one or more basic amenities. (3)A part of a building meets the self-contained flat test if— (a)it consists of a self-contained flat; and (b)paragraphs (b) to (f) of subsection (2) apply (reading references to the living accommodation concerned as references to the flat). (4)A building or a part of a building meets the converted building test if— (a)it is a converted building; (b)it contains one or more units of living accommodation that do not consist of a self-contained flat or flats (whether or not it also contains any such flat or flats); (c)the living accommodation is occupied by persons who do not form a single household (see section 258); (d)the living accommodation is occupied by those persons as their only or main residence or they are to be treated as so occupying it (see section 259); (e)their occupation of the living accommodation constitutes the only use of that accommodation; and (f)rents are payable or other consideration is to be provided in respect of at least one of those persons' occupation of the living accommodation. (5)But for any purposes of this Act (other than those of Part 1) a building or part of a building within subsection (1) is not a house in multiple occupation if it is listed in Schedule 14. (6)The appropriate national authority may by regulations— (a)make such amendments of this section and sections 255 to 259 as the authority considers appropriate with a view to securing that any building or part of a building of a description specified in the regulations is or is not to be a house in multiple occupation for any specified purposes of this Act; (b)provide for such amendments to have effect also for the purposes of definitions in other enactments that operate by reference to this Act; (c)make such consequential amendments of any provision of this Act, or any other enactment, as the authority considers appropriate. (7)Regulations under subsection (6) may frame any description by reference to any matters or circumstances whatever. (8)In this section— “basic amenities” means—(a) a toilet, (b) personal washing facilities, or (c)cooking facilities; “converted building” means a building or part of a building consisting of living accommodation in which one or more units of such accommodation have been created since the building or part was constructed; “enactment” includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30); “self-contained flat” means a separate set of premises (whether or not on the same floor)—(a)which forms part of a building;(b)either the whole or a material part of which lies above or below some other part of the building; and(c)in which all three basic amenities are available for the exclusive use of its occupants. The Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Description)(England) Order 2018 Description of HMOs prescribed by the Secretary of State (In force from 1 October 2018 and replacing the 2006 Order) Clause 4. An HMO is of a prescribed description for the purpose of section 55(2)(a) of the Act if it— (a)is occupied by five or more persons; (b)is occupied by persons living in two or more separate households; and (c)meets— (i)the standard test under section 254(2) of the Act; (ii)the self-contained flat test under section 254(3) of the Act but is not a purpose-built flat situated in a block comprising three or more self-contained flats; or (iii)the converted building test under section 254(4) of the Act. Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Order 2006 Duty of manager to take safety measures Regulation 4.—(1) The manager must ensure that all means of escape from fire in the HMO are— (a)kept free from obstruction; and (b)maintained in good order and repair. (2)The manager must ensure that any fire fighting equipment and fire alarms are maintained in good working order. (3)Subject to paragraph (6), the manager must ensure that all notices indicating the location of means of escape from fire are displayed in positions within the HMO that enable them to be clearly visible to the occupiers. (4) The manager must take all such measures as are reasonably required to protect the occupiers of the HMO from injury, having regard to—(a) the design of the HMO;(b) the structural conditions in the HMO; and(c) the number of occupiers in the HMO. (5) In performing the duty imposed by paragraph (4) the manager must in particular— (a)in relation to any roof or balcony that is unsafe, either ensure that it is made safe or take all reasonable measures to prevent access to it for so long as it remains unsafe; and (b)in relation to any window the sill of which is at or near floor level, ensure that bars or other such safeguards as may be necessary are provided to protect the occupiers against the danger of accidents which may be caused in connection with such windows. (6) The duty imposed by paragraph (3) does not apply where the HMO has four or fewer occupiers. Duty of manager to supply and maintain gas and electricity Paragraph 10 of schedule 13A of the Housing Act 2004 10(1)A person to whom a final notice is given may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against— (a)the decision to impose the penalty, or (b)the amount of the penalty. (2)If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn. (3)An appeal under this paragraph— (a)is to be a re-hearing of the local housing authority's decision, but (b)may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority was unaware. (4)On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal may confirm, vary or cancel the final notice. (5)The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (4) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of more than the local housing authority could have imposed. The hearing[10]This case involves the issue of two financial penalties and does not require an inspection of the property.[11]The hearing via video platform commenced at 10am on Wednesday 22 March 2023. Persons present at the hearing are as detailed on page 1 of this Decision above, and in addition, Samantha McNichol, Housing Standards Officer Team Leader, employed by the Respondent, was also present.[12]Mr Threlfall, Housing Standards Officer, was called to give evidence and confirmed the content of his witness statement and exhibits as being true to best of his knowledge. He was then cross examined.[13]The Respondent’s case is summarised as being that a complaint was made by Mario Barut, a tenant at the property and as a result Mr Threlfall visited the property on 13 January 2020. The property is a detached bungalow, with one room on the first storey and having 5 bedrooms, one of which has an en-suite bathroom. There is a shared kitchen, bathroom and living room.[14]At the time of Mr Threlfall’s visit he saw four people at the property and two of them appeared to be moving belongings into the property, these were Argyro Andreadaki and Parosh Dourish. The other persons were Mario Barut and Adrian Vlada who were resident tenants at the property, living in separate households and paying rent.[15]As a result of what Mr Threlfall was told he suspected that occupancy of this HMO had increased to five tenants and as such required a licence for the property to be run as an HMO. Mr Threlfall inspected the property and found that there were 4 issues that he identified as being breaches of Regulation 4, these being that : a) The automatic fire detection (AFD) fitted was not adequate or of a suitable type. b) The automatic fire detection within the property was defective in that only one smoke detector was working in the first floor bedroom. c) Doors to the bedrooms were not fire doors and were not fitted with automatic closers and seals to prevent the spread of smoke. d) Dangerous electrics in the wiring for the central heating boiler, wires joined with insulation tape and loose plug sockets.[16]The Appellant continued to contend that the property was only occupied by four tenants, in separate households and paying rent so although the property is an HMO, it did not require a licence.[17]Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreements in draft form are exhibited, but there are faults with these documents in that the persons said to be tenants are not always the same as the persons who are said to have provided deposits in the formation of the lease. Photocopies of original signed leases are too dark to be legible and it is contended that Mario Barut, a tenant had involvement in the draft leases, altering them as he saw fit.[18]There is an email from Council Tax Records, but it is clear that there is an error on the face of the email that leads this Tribunal to conclude that this exhibit cannot be relied upon by the Respondent.[19]On 7 February 2020 the Appellant submitted an application for the issue of an HMO licence for the property. That application did not contain sufficient detail and was not proceeded with because on 13 February 2020 the Appellant made an application for a possession order against the tenants, who left the property. The property has since been sold.[20]On 25 February 2020 the Appellant attended an interview under caution and provided a pre-written statement.[21]On 22 July 2020 Notices of Intent to impose a financial penalty were served on the Appellant.[22]The Appellant served representations on the Respondent.[23]The Respondent decided to reduce the financial penalties that had first been notified to the Appellant because of the mitigating features put forward and on 18 March 2021 Final Notices were served imposing the penalties detailed in paragraphs 1 to 3, above. The Respondents employees have not conducted a further inspection the property after the visit of 13 January 2020.[24]The Appellant was called to give evidence and confirmed the content of her witness statement and exhibits as being true to best of her knowledge. She was then cross examined.[25]The Appellant’s case is that she has always sought to cooperate with the requests made by Housing Officers and pointed to an inspection of the property in 2016 when she fully complied with requirements that certain works needed to be done to comply with HMO regulations. The Appellant acknowledged that there had been further emails between herself and Mr Threlfall in which it had been pointed out that if occupancy of the property increased to 5 tenants then the HMO would need to be licensed. The Appellant stated that she had not at any time intended that there be 5 tenants in the property.[26]The Appellant was sent to prison having entered guilty pleas to 7 counts of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. The Appellant asked a friend called Rick Jervis to monitor the property while she was in prison. The Appellant was released from prison in April 2019. After that she resumed her management of the property but had been assisted before and after the prison sentence by the tenant Mario Barut in return for a £50 reduction in his rent.[27]The Appellant accepted that an assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement had been made granting Argyro Andreadaki and Parosh Dourish a tenancy at the property, but continued to state that the tenancy to Parosh had been intended to start only when another tenant had moved out and that she had never expected Argyro to move into the property.[28]The Appellant contends that she did not know that 5 tenants were in residence at the property at the same time.[29]The Appellant states that she has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after her prison sentence and this has affected her ability to manage the property. Further, when she was released from prison, she discovered that there were arrears of rent, she was unemployed and tenants were being obstructive changing the locks and denying her and trades people access to the property.[30]The property was sold and she incurred a loss of £12,o75.76 in that process.[31]The Appellant did eventually obtain employment, commencing 1 February 2022, in well paid employment such that during that employment the Appellant would have had an excess of financial income over expenditure. However, the Appellant has recently been notified that she is to be made redundant. She is yet to receive any redundancy pay. The Appellant’s income is about to drop far under that which she needs to satisfy the financial needs of herself and her two dependent children. Determination of the issues[32]There is no dispute about the nature of the property as being an HMO from 2015 to the date that the tenants were evicted from the property. The issue is whether at any point between 31 January 2020 and 2 July 2020, occupancy increased to 5 tenants using the property as their main residence.[33]The Tribunal determines that the draft Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreements cannot be relied upon by the Respondent because of the matters referred to in paragraph 17, above.[34]The Tribunal determines that Exhibit 10, the email from the Council Tax Department cannot be relied upon by the Respondent because of the matters referred to in paragraph 18, above. There is contradictory evidence in pages 48 and 49 of the Respondent’s bundle.[35]The evidence gathered at the inspection on 13 January 2020 is insufficient to make the Tribunal sure that occupancy had increased to 5 tenants.[36]The Appellant made an application for a possession order in the County Court (Respondent’s exhibit SM1). That application includes a witness statement made by the Applicant, dated 14 October 2020. At paragraph 10 there is an admission that the property had 5 tenants that were all responsible for their portion of the rent. The Tribunal determines that this is clear evidence that the Appellant has managed an HMO that required a licence without such a licence being in force. However, the Tribunal cannot ascertain from this statement when that offence was being committed. The Tribunal notes that the Appellant exhibited an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement to this statement as exhibit MEE-1, it is dated 6 September 2019 and does not have the tenants recorded upon it that the Respondent contends were in residence during the period that the Respondent alleges that this offence was committed.[37]The Tribunal further notes that in the pre-written statement taken to the interview under caution on 25 February 2020 the Appellant stated this, “I do admit that in Jan 2020 a new person (Parish Leondis) was added to the tenancy. He had a girlfriend . I completely missed that having a girlfriend took the numbers to 5 even though I had not rented out another room” (Appellant’s bundle, page C88.)[38]The Tribunal also notes that during the interview under caution the Appellant admits the offence contrary to section 72 of the Act for as from 1 February 2020 (Appellants bundle, page C79. And again on page C80).[39]Further, the witness Parosh Douris states that he and his partner moved into the property on 31 January 2020.[40]The Tribunal notes that the Applicant having realised that the property required a licence applied for such a licence on 7 February 2020. As such the provisions of section 72(4)(b)of the Act then excused the Appellant from the absence of such a licence. The application for a licence was pending until such time as the tenants vacated the property.[41]Considering the issues raised in paragraphs 23 to 40 above, the Tribunal is sure that the Appellant did commit an offence pursuant to section 72 of the Act from 31 January 2020 to 6 February 2020.[42]The Tribunal now turns to consider the fair and just penalty for this offending. The Respondent determined that harm was low and the Tribunal agrees with this assessment. The Respondent determined that culpability was medium, but the Tribunal disagrees with this assessment. The Tribunal has determined that the Appellant is to be punished for managing an HMO that required a licence without such a licence for only seven days. Further, the Tribunal determines that generally the Appellant has cooperated with the Respondent.[43]The Tribunal determines that this offence being of low harm and low culpability falls into band 1 of the Council’s Policy on Civil (Financial) Penalties as an alternative to Prosecution under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. As such the Tribunal determines that the Civil Penalty is £2,500, reduced by £500 to take account of all the mitigating circumstances considered in paragraphs 25 to 31, above. A penalty of £2,000.[44]The Tribunal then considers the Final Notice under section 234 of the Act and the four breaches of Regulation 4 that Mr Threlfall brings to our attention.[45]The Tribunal finds that Mr Threlfall is a reliable witness, and we accept his evidence as to his observations of the condition of the property.[46]The Appellant accepts that the only fire detection present in the property were Fire Angel Smoke Alarms and that when she checked them after Mr Threlfall’s visit none of them were working. The Appellant stated that they were all to be replaced during the afternoon of 25 February 2020 (bundle, C84).[47]The Appellant accepts that the bedroom doors are not fire doors.[48]The Appellant submits that it is not dangerous to use insulating tape on a joint in wires and submits that the electrical inspection of 27 February 2020 (Bundle E54 to 59) makes no complaint about this. The Appellant submits that Mr Threlfall is not qualified to contradict an electrician.[49]The Tribunal has considered the LACORS guide Housing Fire Safety, sections 21 to 25. The Tribunal determines that taking the matters considered above into account it is sure that the Appellant has committed an offence contrary to section 234 of the Act and Regulation 4.[50]However, the Tribunal notes that the guidance in these sections of the LACORS guide is subject to interpretation. The Tribunal determines that the fault detailed in paragraph 15(a) above is not sufficiently specific. The Tribunal determines that in this property only smoke alarms are required in accordance with the Guidance at section 25 of the guide “Shared house HMO of up to 2 stories”. Smoke alarms should have been fitted in compliance with Grade D:LD3, in circulation spaces that form part of the escape routes from the dwelling only.[51]The Tribunal does find that the faults in paragraph 15(b) and (c) are made out.[52]The Tribunal does not consider the faults in Paragraph 15(d) to be dangerous and alters the finding that should be recorded on the Notice to be that the Tribunal does not consider the central heating boiler to have been fitted in an acceptable manner.[53]Turning then to the fair and just financial penalty for this offence. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that harm has been correctly assessed as medium and agrees with the reasoning for this assessment on the Final Notice.[54]The Tribunal does not agree with the Respondent’s assessment that culpability is medium. The Tribunal assesses this to be low. The Property only required smoke alarms. The wiring of the central heating boiler was not dangerous. The main fault is the absence of fire doors, but all occupied bedrooms were on the ground floor and assuming that fire doors and smoke alarms were fitted in accordance with the LACORS Guide, Grade D:LD3, the safety of tenants would have been almost to a satisfactory standard. This Appellant has been found to be generally cooperative with Housing Officers.[55]As such this offence being of medium harm and low culpability falls into band 3 of the Council’s Policy on Civil (Financial) Penalties as an alternative to Prosecution under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. As such the Tribunal determines that the Civil Penalty is £12,500, reduced by £2,500 to take account of all the mitigating circumstances considered in paragraphs 25 to 31, above. A penalty of £10,000. The Decision[56]The Tribunal is satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that from 31 January 2020 to 6 February 2020 the property was an HMO that required a licence and that the Appellant let out the property without such a licence and has therefore committed the offence as detailed on the final notice to issue a civil penalty, pursuant to section 72 of the Act. The Tribunal is also satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that from 13 January 2020 to 6 February 2020 the property was an HMO and was being managed in breach of regulation 4 of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006, the Appellant committing an offence contrary to section 234 of the Act. The Tribunal decides to confirm the final notice in this regard, but to vary the particulars of the second offence by adding to the first bullet point the words, “Smoke detectors to be fitted in accordance with the LACORS guide, Grade D, LD:3, in circulation spaces that form part of the escape routes from the dwelling” and varying the fourth bullet point to read “the Tribunal does not consider the central heating boiler to have been fitted in an acceptable manner” (paragraphs 50 and 52, above).[57]The Tribunal decides that the civil financial penalty imposed in relation to these offences must be varied to;(a)£2,000 in respect of the offence that that from 31 January 2020 to 6 February 2020 the HMO was required to be licensed and was not so licensed contrary to section 72 of the Act and(b)£10,000 in respect of the offence, that between 13 January 2020 to 6 February 2020, under section 234 of the Act, the Appellant failed to comply with management regulations in respect of an HMO, Regulation 4, duty of the manager to take safety measures. Total financial penalty £12,000. The Appellant is required to pay this penalty within 28 days of this Decision being sent to her, to the Respondent, or to agree a payment schedule with the Respondent.[58]Appeal against this Decision is to the Upper Tribunal. Any party wishing to appeal against this Decision has 28 days from the date that the Decision is sent to the parties in which to deliver to this First-tier Tribunal an application for permission to appeal, stating the grounds for the appeal, the paragraph numbers of the Decision appealed against, the particulars of such grounds and the result that the appellant seeks as a result of raising the appeal. Judge C. P. Tonge 22 March 2023 Date sent to the parties : 03 April 2023