5, Drayton Road, Walton Liverpool L4 6TS MAN/00BY/HNA/2020/0030
DECISION
[1]28 Following the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal reconvened later on 10th March to consider all that it had read in the submissions o it and heard at the hearing.[2]29 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 Applicant says about difficulties he had in using the electronic means of making application for a licence, but emphatically does not accept that this excuses an inordinate delay in eventually submitting a completed application. At each stage there appears to be an inexplicable and unjustified delay in making progress with the application, exemplified even at the end of the process with the application dated 12th January, not received until 31st January and not paid for until 1oth February.[3]30 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 the culpability of the Applicant is on the very boundary between low and medium. It feels able to distinguish between that identified in “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]31 To come to what it believes to be an appropriate outcome the Tribunal accepts a situation in which there is medium culpability and low harm, thus a starting point on the matrix of £4.500.00.[5]32 It then finds there are no aggravating features. There are however considerable mitigating features attaching to the Applicant, according to the non-exhaustive list within the policy. In particular: 1) No previous convictions or cautions. 2) No relevant civil penalties (at all). 3) A good record of maintaining the property. 4) A one-off event (but bearing in mind only one of his properties is within the city). 5) No particular suggestion that the offending is motivated by the financial gain of avoiding the cost of a licence, which is eventually paid for. 6) Steps are eventually taken to remedy the problem.[6]33 The Tribunal would note particularly that it does not regard the Applicant’s actions in this case as being indicative of prolonged offending, nor does it regard his attitude to attendance at the interview proposed by the Respondent’s officers as anything other than a choice the applicant is entitled to make.[7]34 Against that background the Tribunal notes that the policy allows for an adjustment from the starting point that in some cases might justify moving outside the identified category range. This is identified at the top of page 40 of the bundle.[8]35 The Tribunal would consider that the mitigating factors here allow for a reduction of 25% from the starting point: in other words, a reduction from £4,500.00 to £3,375.00 that takes the penalty beyond what would normally be the range for the level of culpability and harm found, but allowed within the policy. The Tribunal is also satisfied that such an amount adequately reflects any economic gain to the Applicant whist letting an unlicensed property and is also a penalty appropriate to the perceived means of the Applicant. It also takes the view that the penalty adequately reflects the aims and purposes of the policy that has been properly determined by the Council, balanced against the Tribunal’s view of the Applicant’s conduct.