Background
Great House (Buildings) Limited managed premises at 11 Mellish Flats, Lea Bridge Road, London as a house in multiple occupation (HMO) without the licence required under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004. Waltham Forest Council inspected the property on 21 September 2023 — the date on which it concededly first had sufficient evidence of the offence — and determined to impose a financial penalty of £15,600. Under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 13A to the 2004 Act, a notice of intent must be served “before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence of the conduct.” The council posted its notice of intent on 20 March 2024 by first class post.
The respondent appealed the penalty to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which allowed the appeal and cancelled the financial penalty notice on the ground that the notice of intent had been served out of time. The FTT rejected the council’s arguments that (i) the offence continued beyond 21 September 2023; (ii) the six-month period began on 22 September 2023 (i.e. excluding the first day); and (iii) the corresponding date rule extended the deadline to 21 March 2024. The FTT also found that first class post sent on 20 March 2024 would not be delivered until 22 March 2024. The council appealed to the Upper Tribunal on three of four grounds (abandoning a fourth ground at the hearing).
The Court’s Holding
The Upper Tribunal dismissed all three grounds. On Ground 2 (whether the first day of evidence is included in the six-month period), the Tribunal held that the statutory phrase “beginning with” the first day unambiguously includes that day in the period, following the established line of authority from Zoan v Rouamba [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1509 and confirmed in DPP v Jackson [2025] EWHC 2797 (Admin). The council’s argument that the authority has only a fraction of the first day and should therefore be given the whole of the next day was rejected as inconsistent with settled authority.
On Ground 1 (whether the corresponding date rule extended the deadline from 20 to 21 March 2024), the Tribunal held that the corresponding date rule — which postpones the end of a period to the corresponding day of the relevant month — applies where a period is expressed to run after a specified date, but not where it is expressed to begin with a specified date. Because 21 September 2023 was included in the period, the six months expired at midnight on 20 March 2024, making the notice posted that day inevitably late upon delivery.
On Ground 3 (the deemed delivery date for first class post), the Tribunal confirmed, though noting it was strictly unnecessary given its conclusions on Grounds 1 and 2, that under current conditions first class post is to be expected to arrive on the second working day after posting, consistent with CPR Part 6.26 as adopted as a useful rule of thumb in Newcastle City Council v Abdallah [2024] UKUT 140 (LC). A notice posted on 20 March 2024 would therefore be deemed delivered on 22 March 2024, which is outside the six-month window on any view.
Key Takeaways
- Where a statutory time limit is expressed as a period “beginning with” a specified day, that day is included in the period; the authority does not gain an extra day merely because it may have acquired sufficient evidence part-way through that day.
- The corresponding date rule (which equates a month’s period with the same calendar date in the subsequent month) applies only where the period runs after or from a specified date, not where it begins with that date — so there is no automatic extension to the end-of-month corresponding date.
- For HMO financial penalty notices served by first class post under section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, deemed delivery occurs on the second working day after posting under current Royal Mail conditions, consistent with CPR Part 6.26 adopted as a rule of thumb.
- Local housing authorities must post any notice of intent before the sixth-month deadline to allow for postal delivery — posting on the final day of the limitation period will invariably be too late.
Why It Matters
This decision provides authoritative Upper Tribunal guidance on the calculation of the six-month limitation period for HMO financial penalty notices, resolving recurring disputes about whether the “beginning with” formula includes or excludes the trigger day and whether the corresponding date rule applies. The ruling confirms that local authorities which wait until the last possible day to post a notice of intent will almost certainly serve it out of time, with the result that a proven housing offence goes unpunished and the financial penalty is cancelled regardless of its underlying merits.
More broadly, the case consolidates the distinction between “beginning with” and “after/from” formulations across housing enforcement and other regulatory contexts, reinforcing the practical importance of careful deadline calculation whenever a statutory period is expressed in months. Authorities are advised to build in sufficient time before the six-month mark to ensure actual delivery falls within the limitation period.