The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) set aside a Sheffield landlord's five-year banning order and substituted its own, ruling the First-tier Tribunal gave too little thought to tenants when it ordered their tenancies ended.
Key facts
- Who: Landlords facing banning orders under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, their tenants, and local housing authorities
- From: 7 August 2026
- Source: Jama Ahmed Farrah v Sheffield City Council [2026] UKUT 303 (LC)
Background
In Farrah v Sheffield City Council [2026] UKUT 303 (LC), decided on 7 August 2026, Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke heard an appeal on written representations. Sheffield City Council did not take part, and the landlord, Mr Jama Farrah, was not legally represented.
On 6 March 2024 Mr Farrah pleaded guilty to two offences under section 1(3A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, relating to tenants at 33 Brunswick Street, Sheffield, in December 2022. The council applied for a banning order under section 15 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. On 10 September 2025 the First-tier Tribunal banned him for five years from letting housing, letting agency work and property management work in England.
The First-tier Tribunal's order said the ban would start only once his current tenancies ended, and required him to end each tenancy on the first possible date. Permission to appeal was granted on the question of those terms, not on the ban itself.
The question
Did the First-tier Tribunal have power to make that order, and was it a proper use of its discretion?
The decision
The Upper Tribunal set aside the banning order as a whole and substituted its own. The ban runs until 10 September 2030. For the four tenanted properties, it takes effect on the earlier of 7 November 2026 or the date Mr Farrah stops being their landlord. Conditions require him to appoint managing agents approved by the council by 7 September 2026 and bar him from face-to-face contact or communication with any of his tenants.
The reasoning
The judge held that a banning order can in principle start at a future date or on a future event. But starting the ban only when the tenancies ended was irrational. If the tenancies were never ended, the ban would never begin, and there was no end date. The order also did not limit the delay to the tenanted properties, which left a loophole.
On the requirement to end tenancies, the judge found the First-tier Tribunal had not considered the effect on the tenants, as section 16(4)(d) requires. Asking for their names and tenancy terms was not enough. She did not decide whether the tribunal has power to require a landlord to evict, as that needed legal argument.
She added that since 1 May 2026 no-fault eviction is no longer available, and Ground 6B in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 is a mandatory possession ground. A court has no scope to weigh tenants' interests under it, so the First-tier Tribunal must do so carefully and, in an appropriate case, let tenants make representations.
What this means for tenants
When a tribunal considers a banning order, the likely effect on other people affected, including tenants, is something it must weigh. Tenants whose landlord faces a banning order may wish to take advice on their position and on any notice they receive.
What this means for landlords
A banning order may allow time for existing tenancies to be dealt with, and the Upper Tribunal described a limited delay for tenanted properties as commonplace. Anyone facing an application should get advice before any deadlines in an order pass.
Sources
- Jama Ahmed Farrah v Sheffield City Council [2026] UKUT 303 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 7 August 2026