Newcastle City Council vs Mahmoud Abdallah

This case concerned an appeal by Newcastle City Council against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, which found that landlord Mahmoud Abdallah did not commit an offence by failing to comply with a licence condition due to non-receipt of a demand for information.

TLDR:

• Newcastle City Council appealed against the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
• The main issue was whether a demand for information sent by post but not received was effective.
• The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, clarifying service requirements for local authorities.

The appellant, Newcastle City Council, issued a financial penalty to the respondent, Mahmoud Abdallah, for failing to comply with a licence condition requiring the provision of information on demand. The demand was sent by ordinary post to an address Abdallah no longer occupied, and he did not receive it.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had initially allowed Abdallah's appeal against the financial penalty, finding that the demand was not sent to his last known address and thus was not an effective demand. The Council appealed this decision, arguing the wider implications for its administrative practices.

Abdallah had owned a flat at 29 Gillies Street, Newcastle, since 2007. The area was designated for selective licensing in 2016, and Abdallah obtained a licence in 2017, providing his address as 6 Primrose Lane, Sleaford. He moved in 2017 but did not notify the licensing team of his new address.

In 2021, the Council requested information from all licence holders, sending the demand to Abdallah's old address. Abdallah did not receive the letter and was unaware of the request until a financial penalty was imposed in 2022.

The Upper Tribunal, led by Deputy Chamber President Martin Rodger KC, considered the statutory provisions for service of documents by local authorities. The Tribunal found that the Council had met its obligation by sending the demand to the address provided in the licence application.

The Tribunal concluded that the FTT erred in finding that the demand was not served at Abdallah's last known address. The Council was not required to check other departments for updated addresses.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal but noted that the issue of whether Abdallah had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the demand needed further consideration. The case was remitted to the FTT for this determination.