although, following a banning order, Mr Collins may exercise any ordinary rights he might have to regain possession of his properties (at the end of a tenancy, for example), the making of a banning order would not give him any additional or enhanced rights in this regard. Nor would it diminish the rights of his tenants. 49. We also note that Leeds City Council could consider making interim management orders in relation to Mr Collins rental properties (under Part 4 of the Housing Act 2004). It seems to us that the likely result of such management orders being put in place, following a banning order, would actually be to improve the safety and welfare of Mr Collins tenants. 50. Taking all of the above factors into account, we conclude that the Tribunal should grant the application for a banning order in this case but suspend its application to the properties that have tenants, to permit those tenants to be rehoused. Further, the Tribunal determines that the banning order should commence on 16 February 2022, being the date that this Decision, banning order and annex has been completed as ready to be issued to the parties. This being important to make sure that Mr Collins has a full three months to rehouse his tenants. Extent and duration of the ban imposed 51. We must therefore go on to determine the terms in which a banning order should be made and, in doing so, we must again have regard to the factors mentioned in section 16(4) of the 2016 Act. It is, of course, appropriate also to have regard to the proposals set out in the notice of intent served on Mr Collins by Leeds City Council, but the Tribunal is not constrained by those proposals. 52. Leeds City Council has proposed that Mr Collins should be banned from doing any of the three things listed in paragraph 2 above (letting housing; property management; and letting agency work). It is important to note that a banning order will not necessarily have that effect however: whilst the 2016 Act permits the Tribunal to order a blanket ban on doing any of these things, it also permits the Tribunal to be more selective, and to restrict any ban to just one or two of those things. Nevertheless, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we agree with the Council’s view that Mr Collins should be banned from doing all three things. It is self-evident that the ban should include letting housing and engaging in property management work given all Mr Collins failings noted above. Moreover, even though we are not aware that Mr Collins has previously been involved in letting agency work, we nevertheless consider it appropriate to ban him from engaging in that activity too because of the disregard he has shown for the importance of protecting the health and safety of residential tenants. 53. We also consider that, as an anti-avoidance measure, Mr Collins should be banned from acting as an officer of any company that lets housing or is engaged in property management or letting agency work in England. He should also be banned from any involvement in the management of such a company. 54. We recognise that Mr Collins is currently letting housing in England and, given the serious consequences of breaching a banning order, it would be unjust to put him in a position of being in immediate breach of the order we make. It is therefore appropriate to make the ban on letting housing subject to an exception to allow Mr Collins time, either to make permitted/authorised disposals of his tenanted properties or, if he is lawfully able to do so, to serve notice on his tenants to secure vacant possession. Alternatively, the transitional period created by the exception should afford sufficient time for the local housing authority to pursue the option of making interim management orders, should it decide to do so. 55. Mr Collins has not provided any details about the tenancy agreements to which his properties are subject and so we do not know when any of the tenancies are due to expire. We have therefore decided to limit the exception on letting to a period of three months from the date of the order. The exception will apply only to the properties which Mr Collins has previously indicated to the Council as being let to tenants. 56. Leeds City Council has proposed that the ban imposed by the order should last for five years. Considering all the factors above, we agree with Leeds City Council and make an order accordingly. 57. This case has been conducted during the Covid-19 and Omicron pandemics. This had the effect of the Tribunal having to cancel the face to face hearing that was listed to take place on 14 December 2021 at Bradford. The Government issued guidance just before that hearing date to the effect that citizens should work from home unless going to the workplace was unavoidable. The hearing was then re-scheduled to take place on 31 January 2022 on the Tribunal’s video platform. 58. Appeal against this Decision and Order is to the Upper Tribunal. Any party wishing to appeal has 28 days from the date that the Decision is sent to the parties to deliver to this First-tier Tribunal an application for permission to appeal, stating the grounds for the appeal, particulars of those grounds, the paragraphs appealed against and the result that the appellant seeks by raising the appeal. MAN/00DA/HBA/2020/0001