What is the deadline for serving for landlord civil financial penalty?

Sunday, June 21st, 2026 - By Richard Tacagni, MD, London Property Licensing

This was the question under consideration at an Upper Tribunal hearing in London on 9 June 2026. 

The key facts were simple and agreed between the parties:

• 21 September 2023: the flat on Lea Bridge Road, London E10 was inspected by a council officer from Waltham Forest Council. The officer found the property required an HMO licence under the council’s additional licensing scheme but was not so licensed contrary to section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004.

• 20 March 2024: the council sent a notice of intent to impose a civil financial penalty of £19,500 to the landlord by first class post.  

I was instructed to represent the landlord. Following receipt of the final penalty notice, I submitted an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal and prepared the bundle of documents. One of the key issues raised was that the notice of intent had been issued out of time.

What the legislation says

Schedule 13A, paragraph 2(1) of the Housing Act 2004 states:

“The notice of intent must be given before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence of the conduct to which the financial penalty relates.”

The outcome of the case hinged on the correct legal interpretation of this clause. 

First-tier Tribunal heating

The First-tier Tribunal hearing took place on 11 September 2025. Given the significance of the case and the intricacy of relevant case law, I worked alongside Karol Hart, Solicitor Advocate at Freemans Solicitors who represented the landlord at the hearing.  

In a decision published the following day, the First-tier Tribunal agreed the notice of intent had been given out of time and cancelled the penalty. The Tribunal ordered the council to pay the landlord’s application to appeal and hearing fees. 

Upper Tribunal hearing 

Waltham Forest Council appealed the decision to the Upper Tribunal citing three grounds of appeal with a fourth ground added later:

• Ground 1: correct application of the corresponding date rule.
• Ground 2: identifying the date from which the time starts to run. 
• Ground 3: interpreting section 7 of the Interpretation Act 10978 for deemed service in the ordinary course of post.
• Ground 4: procedural issue about how the First-tier Tribunal approached the appeal. The council abandoned this fourth ground at the start of the Upper Tribunal hearing so it merits no further mention.

The Upper Tribunal hearing took place in London on 9 June 2026. Whilst I attended the hearing with my client, the case for the landlord was expertly presented by Karol Hart, Solicitor Advocate at Freemans Solicitors.

Following detailed legal submissions by both parties, His Honour Judge Neil Cadwallader handed down his decision on 12 June 2026. It was decided:

• “beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence…” means the date of the inspection when the evidence was collected. In this case, the date was 21 September 2023.

• The corresponding date rule does not apply for the purpose of this statutory provision. The statutory language used in the drafting of this clause is different, and intentionally so. The notice of intent must be given before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with 21 September 2023. The end date was 20 March 2024.

• As the notice of intent was not sent by first class post until 20 March 2024, it was not given in time and so the final penalty notice must be cancelled. 

Whilst the appeal succeeded on that point alone, the council raised an additional ground of appeal, the decision on which has wider implications. It relates to when a notice of intent sent by first class post is deemed to arrive. 

The council argued the correct timescale was one working day, citing a Tribunal decision from 2011. In the contrary, we argued the correct timescale was two working days, which is the timescale for deemed service of a document other than a claim form in Ministry of Justice Practice Direction 6A. There was a similar finding in Newcastle City Council v Abdallah [2024] UKUT 140 (LC). The Judge was also invited to take note of Royal Mail’s current mail delivery performance. 

The conclusion? Appeal ground three was also rejected. Deemed service in the ordinary course of post means two working days. The notice of intent sent on 20 March 2024 was deemed served on 22 March 2024, two days out of time. The Upper Tribunal appeal by Waltham Forest Council was dismissed and we have established new case law. 

Looking ahead

It is important that enforcement decisions made by local authorities are made in good time, ideally well within the statutory timescale. This case also demonstrates the importance of professional and legal representation when seeking to challenge a local authority decision. 

The full Upper Tribunal decision can be found here: London Borough of Waltham Forest v Great House (Buildings) Ltd [2026] UKUT 218 (LC)  

The author of this blog, Richard Tacagni is MD at London Property Licensing. He is a Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner and expert housing regulatory advisor to landlords, agents and local authorities and can be contacted here.

For all the latest news and comment, you can sign up for the free London Property Licensing newsletter here.