Reynolds v Brent LBC [2001]

The local authority adopted a model registration scheme for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985, requiring that HMOs be registered with the authority. One of the conditions for registration enabled the authority to refuse a person registration on the basis that they were "not a fit and proper person". The wording of these conditions was identical to the control provisions contained in the 1985 Act. The landlord applied for registration and was refused on the fit and proper person ground. He was told that if he wanted the house to remain in multiple occupation, he would have to appoint a suitable person to manage and then that person should make a new application on that person's behalf. The landlord appealed the local authority's decision.

HELD: The Court of Appeal eventually considered the decision and held that the provisions of section 348(1) of Housing Act 1985 allowed the local authority to act in they manner that they had done. The “fit and proper person” condition was general in its operation, and was only exercisable when registration had been granted. It was free-standing, and not a qualification of the other conditions. There was no justification for considering that just because it was there it had to be considered in every case, or that a decision would be defective if it was not applied.