The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) held that the First-tier Tribunal wrongly struck out a landlord's appeal made 30 days late, because it ignored relevant factors, affecting landlords facing Housing Act 2004 licensing penalties.
Key facts
- Who: Landlords and others given a financial penalty by a local housing authority, who appeal to the First-tier Tribunal after the 28-day period has ended
- From: Judgment date: 5 August 2026
- Source: House for Homes Limited v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2026] UKUT 296 (LC)
On 5 August 2026 the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), in House for Homes Limited v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2026] UKUT 296 (LC), decided an appeal on written representations. Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke gave the decision. Waltham Forest chose not to take part.
Background
Waltham Forest imposed a £15,600 financial penalty under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004 for operating a house without the licence required under Part 3 of the Act. Under Schedule 13A, a Notice of Intent is sent first, allowing 28 days for representations. A Final Notice may then follow. Rule 27(2) of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) rules says an appeal must be brought within 28 days of the Final Notice being sent. Rule 6(3)(a) gives the tribunal a discretion to extend time.
The company's director, Mr Marjan Keqaj, said earlier council letters had gone to the wrong address. He received the Final Notice on 25 March 2025 and wrote to the council the next day, seeking to appeal. He said he did not realise he should appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. On 8 May 2025 the council replied with a document headed "Notice of Intent to Issue a Financial Penalty". The appeal reached the First-tier Tribunal on 22 May 2025, 30 days late. Mr Keqaj had emailed that tribunal on 8 May 2025, 16 days late.
The question
The First-tier Tribunal struck the appeal out for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the reasons given did not justify extending time. The question was whether it had taken relevant matters into account.
The decision and reasoning
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal. It noted that it may interfere with a discretionary decision only where that decision cannot be justified. Here it found the decision unjustifiable, because the First-tier Tribunal looked only at the reason for delay and ignored several relevant matters:
- Mr Keqaj's mistake over procedure was the actual reason for the delay.
- He responded immediately to the notice, though to the council rather than the tribunal.
- The delay was short and would not have affected the council's ability to respond.
- The size of the penalty, and whether striking out was proportionate, was not considered.
The judge also said the council's use of an incorrect address was not irrelevant. No Notice of Intent appeared in the papers, and it was unclear whether one had been sent. The council's own reply suggested it thought he had answered a Notice of Intent, so there appeared to be confusion about procedure.
The decision was set aside and the appeal admitted. The appeal against the penalty will now proceed in the First-tier Tribunal, and the company should apply there for directions.
What this means for landlords
The 28-day time limit for appealing a financial penalty to the First-tier Tribunal still applies, and the penalty notice sets out the right to appeal. The First-tier Tribunal has a discretion to extend time. In this case the Upper Tribunal treated the length of the delay, the steps the landlord took on receiving the notice, and the level of the penalty as relevant matters that had been ignored. The decision does not say a late appeal will be allowed in any other case.
Anyone who receives a Final Notice should check which body the notice says to appeal to and the deadline, and get advice before that deadline passes.
Sources
- House for Homes Limited v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2026] UKUT 296 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 5 August 2026