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)
Applicant’s 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 A’s lack of fitness?: Brent LBC v Reynolds [2001]
Extent to which hearsay can be considered: McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council (1998)
A’s attitude to the premises’ condition: Haringey LBC v Sandhu (1987)
Natural Justice: Tudor v Ellesmere Port BC (1987)