FIT AND PROPER PERSON

1
FIT AND PROPER PERSON

• A key condition for obtaining and keeping a
  licence
• but what does it mean?

2
The Process

• Owners or managers under Mandatory or Selective
  licensing schemes must apply
• The LHA must grant a licence if it is satisfied
  that
• The HMO is reasonably suitable, (etc).
• The licence holder would be a fit and proper
  person

3
The Criteria

• In deciding whether the person is fit and proper
• the LHA must have regard to the statutory
  criteria set out in s.66(2).
• and may have regard to any other facts or matters
  which it considers to be relevant

4
Matters to which the LHA must have regard

• any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty,
  or violence or drugs, or in Sch.3 SOA 2003
• practised unlawful discrimination in connection
  with the carrying out of any business
• contravened any provision of the law relating to
  housing or of landlord and tenant law
• acted other than in accordance with any code of
  practice for the management of HMOs

5
Associates

• LHA may take into account evidence of any of the
  above conduct by a person associated, or
  formerly associated with, the proposed licence
  holder or manager whether on a personal, work or
  other basis, if relevant.

6
Relevance

• Standard is the LHA satisfied?
• Use your common sense
• Always a matter of fact and degree a spectrum
  seriousness x time x role
• Effect of ROA 1974 may need to be considered
  spent convictions
• But lack of a conviction may not mean that the
  incident is not relevant

7
Managers, licensees and others

• Assumption the person having control of the
  premises is the most appropriate person to hold
  the licence.
• The proposed manager, if not the licence holder,
  and all other persons involved in the management
  must also be fit and proper.

8
The Decision

• LHA not satisfied?
• it must refuse, and make an IMO instead
• Proposed reasons to be given in advance
• A has 14 days to make representations
• Right of appeal to the RPT

9
Guidance from the Courts

• Relevance of the Truthfulness of an applicant
  Chief Officer Of Leicestershire v Shirley Dawn
  Tatam 2005
• Requirement for the Possession of Qualifications
  Darlington Borough Council V Malcolm Kaye 2004
• Relevance of entry on Sex Offenders Register
  Secretary Of State v Snowdon 2002

10
Guidance from the Courts

• Length of time for determination Re Dudley
  Metropolitan Borough Council (LGO, 2002)
• Applicants employers refuse to disclose their
  details R v Warrington Crown Court, ex p RBNB
  2002
• Relevance to an application of a lack of
  prosecutions R v Birmingham Licensing Justices,
  Ex Parte Crew 2001

11
Guidance from the Courts

• Can conditions cure As lack of fitness? Brent
  LBC v Reynolds 2001
• Extent to which hearsay can be considered McCool
  v Rushcliffe Borough Council (1998)
• As attitude to the premises condition Haringey
  LBC v Sandhu (1987)
• Natural Justice Tudor v Ellesmere Port BC (1987)