Luton Borough Council v Altavon Luton Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 2415 (Admin)

This was an appeal by way of case stated. There were three defendants: Alvaton Luton Ltd, a director, Sajid Sayed, and an officer of the company, Kate Bukrashvilli. Informations were laid against them on 15 November 2017 with the date of the offences being 16 May 2017. The informations alleged that the 3 had control and/or management of a house in multiple occupancy. Four offences were identified contrary to the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 and sections 234(3) and 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004.

It was the respondents’ case that the informations were out of time. Their submission was that the time should have run from April 2017 when the housing officer became aware of the situation in the property, or, in any event, that he had sufficient evidence to proceed before 16 May 2017.

The housing officer gave evidence that he needed to enter the premises to inspect and establish that it was an unlicensed HMO. He finally managed to do so on 15 or 16 May 2017.

The judge found that he was aware of the offences at the very latest by 12 May when he spoke to Mr Sayed on the phone. In that call, Mr Sayed asked how he could resolve the issue of the unlicensed HMO. In April questionnaires had been distributed to the tenants to establish whether the house required an HMO licence, they had been collected, and he had spoken to Kate Bukrashvilli.

The judge found that the offences were “continuing offences” and that s127 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 required information to be laid within 6 months of the time “when the offences came to light”. In issue was how s127 applies to a continuing offence.

The appellant stated the evidential detail necessary for the informations in respect of the regulatory offences would not have been known to the officer until he entered into and inspected the premises. The information from phone calls and questionnaires would be insufficient. It was accepted that the relevant visit to the premises was 16 May 2017.

Held: as continuing offences, it follows that the offences were continuing until the officer’s entry into the premises. Knowledge gained by him before that date was relevant in so far as it enabled him to be in a position whereby he had sufficient grounds to enter the property. The point made by the appellant was accepted; that the entry was necessary for the identification and detail of the breaches of the regulatory offences. The information was not time-barred. The order of the district judge was set aside, and the informations against each respondent were re-instated.