In Sutton v Norwich City Council (2020) UKUT 90 (LC) a company and its director appealed against financial penalties and a prohibition order imposed on them by a local authority. The lengthy Judgment considers a range of questions: whether a building was within the ambit of the HMO; whether improvement notices were valid; the power to penalise a director of a company; whether the individual was the manager of the building for the purposes of the HMO Regulations; what may constitute a reasonable excuse for non- compliance; the correct approach to penalty; quantum for breaches of the Regulations; quantum for non-compliance with improvement notices; and the validity of a prohibition notice. The authority was found to have applied its policy in a way that imposed disproportionate penalties without proper consideration of the facts.
Subscribe
Get an email when we publish a new post on this blog. We'll never share your email and you can unsubscribe any time. Our use of your details is explained in our privacy policy.
Headings
- Best Value (13)
- Capital Finance and Companies (51)
- Council Tax and Rates (69)
- Decision making and Contracts (243)
- Elections and Bylaws (32)
- Environment, Highways and Leisure (112)
- General (16)
- Housing (138)
- Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty (99)
- Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation (198)
- Land, Goods and Services (67)
- Local Authority Powers (71)
- Non Judicial Control (20)
- Planning and Environmental (128)
- Social Care (66)
- Standards (22)
Disclaimer
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
11KBW, 11 King’s Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7EQ | Tel: 020 7632 8500
Privacy | Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2024
Privacy | Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2024