Mr. Navid SabirApplicantSheffield City CouncilRespondent
Before
Judge John MurrayMr. Neil SwainMr. Navid Sabir Mr Christopher Machin for the ApplicantSheffield City Council Mr Michael Haywood for the RespondentDate 23 February 2026Property: 247 Pitsmoor Road, Sheffield S3 9AQType of application: Appeal against financial penalties - Section 249A & Schedule 13A to the Housing Act 2004
DECISION
[27]The Applicant appealed the decision of the Respondent to impose fines upon the Second Applicant. The Tribunal can review the fines based upon a rehearing.[28]The Applicant through his Counsel having changed the basis of his appeal, it was no longer necessary for the Tribunal to determine that the Applicant was the person in control or management of the Property, within the meaning of sections 263 (1) – (3) of the Housing Act 2004 the Property at the relevant time. He admitted that he was.[29]The only issue for the Tribunal to determine was whether the Penalty Notices were set at the appropriate amount.[30]In his statement the Applicant had submitted that:a. He believed the penalties were excessive and disproportionate.b. The Respondent failed to follow Guidance for Local Housing Authorities (Civil penalties under Housing and Planning Act 2016), which requires consideration of culpability, harm, financial benefit, among other factors.c. He was not culpable for any of the breaches. He did not derive any financial benefit as he did not receive the rent or manage tenants during this period. (the Respondent produced evidence to the contrary).d. The Respondent had considered previous alleged convictions/offences when determining penalty level; it was his view that penalties should be assessed independently without reference to unrelated history.[31]The Respondent's evidence set out in some detail in relation to each of the six determinations how they had assessed the level of penalty, by reference to their matrix of penalties, assessing culpability and harm, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, Punishment, Deterrence and Removing the Financial Benefit of Offending, evaluation of reasonableness, and totality.[32]There clearly is a need to punish an offender in these circumstances, as well as to deter the offender, and others, from committing similar offences. The Tribunal agreed that the penalty notices[33]The Tribunal considered the determinations for the six notices and found that the methodology applied by the Respondent was in accordance with their policy and government guidance. The Tribunal agreed with the assessments of culpability in all cases assessed by the Respondent but did reconsider and revise the harm assessment as below.[34]The Notices of Intention in relation to offences under ss. 72 and 234 of the 2004 Act were issued on 3 April 2024. After considering representations, Final Notices were issued on 17 October 2025[35]The Final Notices under appeal are as follows:a. Section 72 – operating an HMO without a license: £13,950b. Section 234 for breach of Regulation 3 of The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 (the 2006 Regulations) - failure to provide information to the occupants: £1,740c. Section 234 for breach of Regulation 4 – failure to take safety measures: £16,875d. Section 234 for breach of Regulation 5 – failure to maintain water supply and drainage: £3,670e. Section 234 for breach of Regulation 7 – failure to maintain the common parts, fixtures fittings and appliances: £12,600f. Section 234 for breach of Regulation 8 -failure to maintain the living accommodation: £9,780[36]The total of the six financial penalties imposed by the Respondent was £58,615.[37]The Tribunal reviews the financial penalties as follows:a. Section 72 – operating an HMO without a license: Original penalty £13,950. The Tribunal assessed harm as medium high, on the basis that the lack of building regulations, the standard of building and workmanship on the blocks had the potential to be seriously harmful to residents. The starting point on the matrix was therefore £20,000. Adjusting by 10%, increased this figure to £22,000. The Tribunal considered that the appointment of the Applicant's brother was not necessarily an aggravating factor, so that adjustment was removed. The Tribunal added on 10% to take into account the vulnerable residents resulting in a figure of £24,000. The Tribunal found no mitigation. £3,000 was added on to take into account the amount of rent received for the four years that the property was unlicensed (almost £200,000) producing a figure of £27,000. This figure was then adjusted for overall reasonableness by 20%, so that the final penalty was determined at £21,600.b. Section 234 for breach of Regulation 3 of The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 (the 2006 Regulations) - failure to provide information to the occupants: original penalty £1,740. The Tribunal disagreed with the items the Respondent raised as aggravating factors. The Tribunal considered that the starting figure of £7500 should be reduced on n reasonableness by 80% producing a final figure of £1500.c. Section 234 for breach of Regulation 4 – failure to take safety measures: original penalty £16,875. The Tribunal agreed that Culpability was high, and Harm medium/high in relation to this offence so the starting figure for assessment was £20,000. The Tribunal again disagreed with the aggravating factors, but increased the base figure by 25% for punishment and deterrent bringing the figure to £25,000. Having removed the aggravating factors, we saw no reason to reduce the amount further, so set the penalty at £25,0000.d. Section 234 for breach of Regulation 5 – failure to maintain water supply and drainage: original penalty £3,670. The Tribunal agreed wtih the Respondent’s assessment of high culpability/low harm, producing a starting figure of £7500. We did not consider it necessary to add either aggravating factors or a deterrent to this penalty. In terms of reasonableness , we determined to reduce the amount by 50% to £3750e. Section 234 for breach of Regulation 7 – failure to maintain the common parts, fixtures fittings and appliances: original penalty £12,600 . The Respondent considered this matter to be high culpability, medium risk. The Tribunal determined that risk was medium/low, being less serious than overall fire safety issues. The starting figure as a consequence was £11250. The Tribunal did not agree with the Respondent’s aggravating factor numbered(i) but did agree to add 10% for aggravating factor(ii) in that falls are more likely. This produced a figure of £12375. 20% was added to this for deterrent factor given value of works, adding on £2250 bringing the total amount to £14,625. This figure was then adjusted for reasonableness by 20% producing a final penalty figure of £11700.f. Section 234 for breach of Regulation 8 -failure to maintain the living accommodation: original penalty £9,780. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent's determination of high Culpability and medium/low harm, producing a starting figure of £11250. In terms of aggravating factors, the Tribunal added 10% for (ii) agreeing that the total of 15 breaches of Regulation 8 to was indicative of a persistent, systemic absence of a regimen of effective management measures of the block that affected most of the occupants, increasing the Penalty by £1125 to £12375. The Tribunal added on a deterrent amount of 20% increasing the sum to £14625, before adjusting for reasonableness by 20%, resulting in a final penalty amount of £11700.[38]The penalties totalled £75250. The Tribunal carried out a final exercise to moderate the total amount (totality) by 40% taking into account:a. the Applicant was the Freehold owner but not involved in the day to day management of the premises (the person in control having been separately fined)b. The Applicant has been prosecuted and fined in the Magistrates Court resulting in a total figure of £45,150.[39]Each Penalty is therefore determined in the following amounts: i. S72(1) Housing Act £21,600 reduced by 40% : £12,960 ii. reg 3(b) Breach £1,500 reduced by 40% : £900 iii. reg 4 Breach £25,000 reduced by 40% : £15000 iv. reg 5 Breach £3750 reduced by 40% : £2250 v. reg 7 Breach £11,700 reduced by 40% : £7020 vi. reg 8 Breach £11,700 reduced by 40% : £7020 Tribunal Judge John Murray 23 February 2026