Naila Tabassam vs Manchester City Council

This case involved an appeal by Naila Tabassam against a financial penalty imposed by Manchester City Council for failing to comply with an improvement notice on her tenanted property.

TLDR:

• Landlord Naila Tabassam appealed against a financial penalty for non-compliance with an improvement notice.
• The Upper Tribunal found that the notices were correctly served but the landlord had a reasonable excuse for non-compliance.
• The financial penalty was overturned as the landlord was unaware of the notice due to not updating her address with the Land Registry.

The appellant, Naila Tabassam, owned a property at 58 Ollier Avenue, Manchester, which she rented out to tenants. In March 2019, the tenant complained to Manchester City Council about disrepair. The council sent several notices to the addresses listed in their records and at HM Land Registry, but Tabassam did not receive them as she had not updated her address.

Despite the council's efforts, including sending an improvement notice and a notice of a financial penalty, Tabassam remained unaware of these communications. The tenant did not pass on the notices, and Tabassam had moved from the address listed at the Land Registry.

In March 2020, after the tenant vacated the property, Tabassam refurbished the house. She only became aware of the improvement notice and financial penalty in July 2020 when the council sent a reminder to her current address.

Tabassam appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) against the financial penalty, arguing she had a reasonable excuse for non-compliance as she did not receive the notices. The FTT found that the notices were correctly served and that her failure to update her address did not constitute a reasonable excuse.

On appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the judge considered whether the notices were correctly served and if Tabassam had a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal upheld the FTT's finding that the notices were correctly served according to the Local Government Act 1972.

However, the Upper Tribunal found that Tabassam had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the improvement notice. The judge noted that she did not deliberately avoid receiving the notice and had been easy to locate once the council checked their records properly.

The Tribunal concluded that holding Tabassam liable for the penalty was exceptionally harsh, given that she was unaware of the notice due to a technical error in not updating her address at the Land Registry. The decision of the FTT was set aside, and no financial penalty was payable.