In an appeal, before the Upper Tier Tribunal, by Waltham Forest Council against a First Tier Tribunal ruling on a negative Fit & Proper Person (to hold a Housing Act Part 3 licence) decision made by the Council, the Council has only partly won it's appeal.

The Council had revoked the selective licence granted to the landlord in respect of one property and refused to grant a licence to the company of which she was the sole director in relation to another property. Both decisions were made on the inferred basis that neither the landlord nor the company she was a director of were Fit & Proper Persons based on their links to family members of the landlord who had been found guilty of housing offences including falsification of gas safety certificates and supplying false information in support of licence applications (the latter resulting in a £40,000 fine). The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that there was no evidence to show that the landlord whose licence was revoked had been involved in the offences of her relatives. The Tribunal also found that there were no reasons given by the Council specific to the company as to why it was not a Fit & Proper Person and no evidence to show it had carried out any wrongdoing.

Waltham Forest had 4 grounds of appeal:

1. The FTT had misdirected itself in assessing whether the company was fit and proper at the time of the appeal rather than at the time of the Council's decision and by failing to take into account the Council's fit and proper findings at the date of their decision;
2. The FTT wrongly held that the Council had no power to ask questions aimed at eliciting the company's assets, reserves or employees;
3. The FTT erred in allowing the landlord's appeal and thus reversing the Council's decision and "reinstating" the landlord's licence;
4. The FTT misdirected itself as to the evidence about the landlord and thus wrongly found that both the landlord and her company were Fit & Proper Persons to hold licences.

The UTT rejected grounds 1 and 4 of the Council's appeal taken together saying "Where the question is .... whether the [Local] Authority was wrong to refuse to grant or to revoke a licence on the basis that the proposed licensee is not a fit and proper person, evidence that tends to show whether that person is now a suitable person is likely to be relevant and should be taken into account ... whether the factual matters occurred before or after the authority's decision." and the FTT could take into account "the financial standing, experience and additional director [the company] .... had at the time of the hearing" because the question was whether the company was fit to hold a licence for the future.

Grounds 2 and 3 were accepted but only on minor points.