Housing Barrister Summary of Kazi v Bradford Borough Council [2023]

Trinity Social Housing Law barrister, Henry Percy-Raine has prepared the following summary of the recent Court of Appeal decisions in Kazi v Bradford Borough Council (HOUSING – CIVIL PENALTY – procedure) [2023] UKUT 128 (LC).

This was an appeal against an order made by the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) in September 2022 striking out an appeal against a financial penalty imposed by a local housing authority. The appeal was struck out for being out of time.

Facts

Mr Kazi is the freeholder of an HMO and is 73 years of age.

On 23^rd June 2022, the local housing authority issued a final notice of a financial penalty under s.249A of the Housing Act 2004 against Mr Kazi on the ground he was managing an HMO and failed to comply with the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007, including failure to provide information to the tenants, ineffective fire doors, rubbish in the garden and poor decorative repair.

On 19^th August 2022, Mr Kazi submitted an appeal to the FTT against the final notice (outside of the 28-day time frame pursuant to Schedule 13A Housing Act 2004). Mr Kazi requested an extension of time on the basis that he fell ill roughly two weeks after receiving the notice, subsequently tested positive for Covid-19 in early August 2022 and had not been well enough to make the application to appeal.

On 16^th September 2022, the FTT struck out the appeal on the basis it was out of time and declined to extend time on the basis that Mr Kazi had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation to make the appeal in time or justify the delay of two months to make his appeal.

The Appeal

The Upper Tribunal considered that the FTT’s rationale for striking out was expressed in generic terms and did not engage with the explanation for the delay provided by Mr Kazi. It was noted that Covid-19 can cause exhaustion and the delay was commensurate with the length of time Mr Kazi said he was ill. The FTT did not say whether it accepted the truthfulness of his account or otherwise, nor did it say that the difficulty was that he should have provided medical evidence.

Accordingly, Mr Kazi’s appeal was allowed and the decision of the FTT was set aside on the basis that it either failed to take into account his explanation and therefore a relevant consideration or failed to give reasons why the explanation was inadequate.