The Upper Tribunal has set aside a First-tier Tribunal decision on housing civil penalties totalling £86,500, because Mr Kravec was wrongly told he could not give video evidence from the Czech Republic.
Key facts
- Who: Property owners and others appealing local authority civil penalties, especially where a party or witness lives abroad
- From: Judgment of 30 April 2026
- Source: Maros Kravec v Salford City Council
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decided Maros Kravec v Salford City Council [2026] UKUT 170 (LC) on 30 April 2026. Judge Elizabeth Cooke determined the appeal on written representations.
Background
Under section 249A of the Housing and Planning Act 2004, a local housing authority can impose a financial penalty, as an alternative to prosecution, if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person has committed a "relevant housing offence". The offences include controlling or managing a house in multiple occupation (HMO) that should be licensed but is not, and failing to comply with the Management Regulations. A person served with a final notice of a civil penalty may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
Salford City Council imposed five civil penalties on Mr Kravec, relating to three Salford properties of which he is the registered proprietor. He appealed to the FTT, and the applications were heard together in February 2025.
Mr Kravec and one of his witnesses live in the Czech Republic. Two other witnesses, his father and his brother, live in Slovakia.
The question
The issue was whether the hearing was unfair because Mr Kravec and his witnesses did not give live evidence by video link, after the FTT told Mr Kravec he could not give evidence from the Czech Republic.
The decision
The Upper Tribunal held that the hearing was unfair. It set aside the FTT's decision and remitted the matter to be reheard by a different FTT panel.
The reasoning
Giving evidence by video from another country is not always possible. It essentially requires the consent of the authorities in that country, although some countries have made clear they have no objection.
The Upper Tribunal found that the FTT had taken it upon itself to tell Mr Kravec he could not give evidence from the Czech Republic, gave no reasons, and repeated the point on two further occasions in clear terms. Guidance the FTT referred to could have corrected the error, but criticising Mr Kravec for not putting the FTT right penalised him for complying with its direction. His counsel at the hearing also missed the point, but passing responsibility for the FTT's mistake to him was unfair, particularly given its dramatic consequences.
As a result, the evidence from Mr Kravec and his witnesses was given only in writing, and the FTT gave it little weight. The FTT also drew an adverse inference that he had deliberately avoided giving live evidence. The Upper Tribunal said there was no proper basis for that conclusion.
The FTT had found that Mr Kravec was managing the properties and that the offences were committed, and it increased the penalties imposed by the council. After it accepted one ground of challenge and reduced one penalty, the total came to £86,500.
Because the appeal succeeded on the unfair hearing ground, the Upper Tribunal did not consider the other grounds. All the issues Mr Kravec disputes will be heard afresh.
What this means for property owners appealing civil penalties
- The Upper Tribunal held that the FTT's own incorrect statements about where evidence could be given from could not fairly be put on the appellant.
- Where a party or witness is abroad, the Upper Tribunal explained that video evidence essentially needs the consent of the other country's authorities, unless that country has made clear it has no objection.
- Evidence given only in writing is, as the Upper Tribunal put it, inevitably given less weight than live evidence.
Sources
- Maros Kravec v Salford City Council [2026] UKUT 170 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 30 April 2026