The council is supposed to follow a “staged ” approach. This was completely ignored in our case. Lincoln City Council’s PACE Interview Strategy: A very likely Breach of Statutory Enforcement Duties and Deliberate Circumvention of Due Process

1. Lincoln City Council Ignored Its Own Enforcement Policy

Lincoln City Council’s behaviour surrounding the PACE interview following the 27 February 2025 warrant inspection represents a clear violation of its own Housing Enforcement Policy (2019–2024).

That policy explicitly sets out a staged, proportionate enforcement approach:

“We will take a stepped approach to enforcement, starting with informal action, except where the seriousness of the situation requires immediate formal action.”
(Housing Enforcement Policy, Lincoln City Council, p. 7)

Government guidance (e.g. DCLG Guidance on Civil Penalties, April 2017) and most council Enforcement Policies state that:

“A genuine attempt to comply is a mitigating factor when deciding whether to proceed with a civil penalty or prosecution. Councils are expected to consider whether the landlord cooperated and made reasonable efforts to correct the issue before enforcement.”

Source (DCLG, 2017):

> “A civil penalty should not be used as a quick alternative to resolving a breach that can be dealt with informally and cooperatively.”

Yet in this case:

The council conducted an intrusive, warrant-based inspection, Discovered alleged “deficiencies” never raised in previous inspections, And immediately escalated the matter to a criminally-oriented PACE interview, Without issuing any informal warnings, improvement notices, or hazard awareness notices beforehand. The findings were only disclosed once this was requested by the Landlord 6 weeks after the inspection under warrant and only after the invitation to interview under caution. Please note that no communications attempt was made by the council prior to the invitation to interview under caution. Basically the council conducted the house inspection under warrant and remained silent until the invitation to interview under caution.

This silence is a strategic decision to bypass the stages of resolution that the council itself has committed to follow.

It demonstrates that the council had already decided to prosecute or penalise, and simply needed evidence—no matter how recently discovered or minor—to justify that decision after the fact.

—

2. Breach of the National Regulators’ Code (2014):

The Regulators’ Code (Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, 2014)—which legally binds all local authorities—requires that:

> Paragraph 1.1: “Regulators should support those they regulate to comply and grow.”
Paragraph 2.3: “Regulators should provide simple and straightforward ways to engage with those they regulate, including the provision of feedback and opportunities for dialogue.”
Paragraph 3.1: “Regulators should ensure that their approach to regulatory activities is transparent.”

None of these duties were fulfilled.

Instead:

The council withheld the inspection findings,

Made no attempt to engage or warn the landlord,

And concealed its intent until a formal PACE interview letter was served—a prosecutorial trap, not a regulatory dialogue.

This is a conduct that defies both the letter and spirit of national regulatory policy.

—

3. The Council’s Conduct is more consistent with a Tactical Enforcement Ambush

This behaviour cannot be explained as an isolated error or misjudgment:

It follows a clear pattern where landlords are offered no chance to engage or rectify.

It reflects a wider culture within Lincoln City Council of using enforcement tools as revenue-generation instruments or to meet internal “action” targets. This is in line with the very high number of penalty notices and prosecution initiated by Lincoln city council versus other councils.

By acting only after a warrant visit, and building its case mainly on newly discovered and previously unreported issues, the Council is:

Constructing non-compliance, rather than attempting to resolve genuine risk.

Setting up landlords to fail, then penalising them. Exploiting criminal law processes (such as PACE) as intimidation tactics, not as instruments of justice.

—

4. Pattern of Disregard for Due Process

This is not an isolated incident. Evidence suggests:

Lincoln is one of the most aggressive councils in England in terms of prosecutions and civil penalties against landlords, including and especially licensed operators.

The Council is increasingly using PACE interviews and civil penalties without prior informal engagement, often based on technical or newly discovered issues.

This behaviour violates statutory guidance, and reflects a strategic misuse of enforcement powers.

The Council is acting not as a regulator, but as a prosecutor with a financial interest in maximising fines and prosecution targets and it seems to act as a specialist in this field.

—

Conclusion:

Lincoln City Council’s decision to escalate to a PACE interview—based mainly on newly raised issues discovered during a warrant-based inspection, with no prior warnings or informal stages may constitute:

A breach of the Lincoln Housing Enforcement Policy (2019–2024);

A violation of the Regulators’ Code (2014);

A denial of the right to be heard and respond, contrary to natural justice; and

A clear bias towards prosecutorial discretion.

When the council can skip due process and go straight to prosecution.

Circumstances Allowing Immediate Prosecutions in this context

The matter subject to immediate prosecution poses Imminent Risk to Health and Safety.

If this were the case the issues would have been notified to the landlord immediately after inspection on the 27th of February 2025 and not only was this not done voluntarily proactively by the council, but it was the Landlord himself who requested this information. Upon receipt of some information in relation to this the Landlord called the officer Hannah Cann to have clarification of the alleged deficiencies.

Circumstances Allowing Immediate Prosecutions

Under normal circumstances, councils are required to follow due process before proceeding to prosecution against a landlord, including the issuance of warning notices or improvement notices and allowing reasonable time for compliance. However, councils may bypass this process and proceed directly to prosecution only in exceptional cases, specifically where:

The matter poses an Imminent Risk to Health and Safety.

If the inspection conducted on 27 February 2025 had revealed any such imminent risks, the council would have been under a clear duty to notify the landlord immediately to protect the safety of the occupants. This did not happen. Instead, no notification was provided voluntarily or proactively by the council.

It was the Landlord himself who first requested information regarding any alleged deficiencies. Only after this request did the council provide limited information. Upon receipt, the Landlord made further efforts to engage constructively by contacting the officer, Hannah Cann, to seek clarification of the allegations.

The matter could not have constituted an imminent risk to health or safety, particularly as the council failed to notify the landlord of any alleged deficiencies until the issuance of the notice for interview under caution.

The absence of any immediate notification, combined with the council’s delay in disclosing the alleged deficiencies, strongly indicates that no imminent risk was present at the time of the inspection. Had there been a genuine imminent risk, immediate action would have been not only appropriate but legally required to prevent harm.

In light of this, the council’s decision to bypass due process and proceed directly to prosecution is procedurally questionable and inconsistent with both their statutory duties and principles of fairness.

Repeat Offences: If the landlord has a history of non-compliance or previous convictions related to housing regulations.

No history of non-compliance available when the council was challenged to provide evidence of this. Contradicting statements in witting not backed up by evidence were made in the emails exchange after the notification of the interview under caution. These statements were vague and out of context with which seemed deceptive when placed out of context. Email exchange is available and independent scrutiny of this shows the council attitude in a very disfaurable light.

Failure to Obtain Necessary Licenses: Operating an HMO without the required license can lead to immediate legal action.

Not the case.

Obstruction of Council Officers: If a landlord obstructs council officers in the course of their duties by denying access for inspections.

The council have been always welcome to visit at their request since 2018 and prior. More recently, when the request was made in 2024 between two dats proposed, an even earlier date on a Wednesday was made which was earlier even the two proposed. Further examples of this compliance and openness can be made by referencing all records we hold and several other means.

Non-Compliance with Formal Notices: Ignoring or failing to comply with formal improvement or prohibition notices issued by the council.

This never occurred.

Optimising for Prosecution and Civil penalties.

The current approach is indicative of specialisation towards Prosecution and Civil penalties vcontrary to the council and genvernemnt policies.

1. Strategic Silence as a Prosecution Tactic

Despite multiple emails we sent informing Hannah Cann of completed works and our ongoing efforts to comply with housing standards:

No acknowledgment or engagement was offered in response.

There was no attempt to verify or inspect whether the issues raised had been resolved. This escalated instead to entry under warrant.

This silence contradicts the “education and engagement” approach outlined in the Lincoln Council’s “Enforcement Policy 2019–2024”, which emphasizes informal resolution, advice, and support before formal action.

Interpretation: Silence followed by entry under warrant here serves a strategic function—to avoid giving the landlord any opportunity to rely on correspondence as mitigating evidence and allow easier resolutions. By ignoring the updates, the council can later claim that the landlord “failed to act,” even when they had acted and documented it.

—

2. Withholding Findings Until the PACE Interview Letter

The housing team :

Conducted a warranted inspection on 27 February 2025.

Did not inform you of any findings immediately or in subsequent communications.

Only revealed the alleged deficiencies weeks later via a formal PACE interview under caution letter. It is noteworthy that this was not done by them proactively , this was disclosed under the Lanlord’s specific request. It is very important to note that the proactive action comes from the landlord (license holder) not the enforcing authority. This shows the proactive nature of the landlord and the optimisation towards sprosecutory tactics of the council.

This tactic is optimised for:

Maximizes legal jeopardy for the landlord by denying the opportunity to rectify issues or provide context.

Is inconsistent with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) enforcement guidance, which recommends prior engagement and hazard notification before escalated enforcement.

Contradicts natural justice principles (e.g. Audi alteram partem — “let the other side be heard”).

Interpretation: This delay in disclosure suggests a deliberate move to build a prosecutable case in silence, rather than resolving compliance matters proactively.

—

3. Disproportionate Focus on Licensed HMOs of a clearly cooperative Landlord.

Whereas most councils target unlicensed HMOs (where there is no engagement or control), our property was:

Fully licensed.

Previously visited and praised by Mark Sherwood (with multiple visits and documented cooperation).

Demonstrating a history of compliance and investment.

This makes it statistically extrimelly unusual to pursue criminal or civil penalties for a licensed HMO without escalating concerns informally. The emphasis on prosecution under these circumstances strongly suggests coucil specialization in building formal legal cases.

—

4. Contrast with Councils stated Policy

Lincoln Council’s Enforcement Policy (2019–2024) emphasizes:

Proportionality.

Consistency.

Informal resolution where appropriate.

Education and advice first.

The council’s actions repeatedly contradict this stated approach, suggesting either:

A disregard for the council’s own procedural standards; or

A deliberate strategy to focus on prosecutable outcomes—especially where the landlord is engaged and communicative (making it easier to control the flow of information and surprise them legally).

—

Conclusion

The pattern of behavior by council—marked by strategic silence, delayed disclosure, and use of formal procedures over cooperative resolution—is not indicative of a housing officer focused on education or tenant safety improvement. Rather, it reflects a specialization in prosecution:

Optimizing for procedural strength rather than property improvement.

Using silence and control over timing to reduce defences and increase the likelihood of penalty imposition or successful prosecution.

Exploiting the landlord’s cooperation by converting updates into passive selective evidence rather than opportunities for resolution.

The delayed disclosure of findings after the warrant-based inspection by the housing team demonstrates a tactical intent to prosecute, not to protect public safety or promote compliance.

—

1. Failure to Notify the Landlord of Findings Immediately Undermines Public Safety

If the inspection conducted under warrant on 27 February 2025 genuinely uncovered serious health or safety hazards, and the council’s primary concern was protecting tenants or the public:

The findings should have been disclosed to the landlord immediately—ideally within hours or days of the visit.

Prompt notification would have allowed The license holder, as the only person with authority to rectify the issues, to take action.

Delaying disclosure risks ongoing danger to tenants, contradicting the council’s duty under the Housing Act 2004 and the HHSRS enforcement framework.

Therefore: The failure to inform the landlord of serious alleged deficiencies until weeks later (via the PACE interview letter) is not consistent with a public interest or safety motive. Additionally undermines any possible allegations that the alleged deficiencies are worthy of a prosecutory approach altogether. In other words if they are serious (or worthy of direct prosecutions) they should at least been notified immediately.

—

2. Disclosure Only at PACE Stage Signals Prosecutorial Tactics

Instead of using the inspection findings to:

Encourage or enforce immediate improvements;

Engage in informal discussions or issue improvement notices;

…the findings were strategically withheld until the formal “interview under caution” letter, which is a criminal law mechanism used to build prosecutable cases.

This strongly indicates:

The intent was to secure admissions or evidence that could be used to justify a civil penalty or criminal charge.

We were denied a chance to rectify the issues beforehand, ensuring any subsequent enforcement action could claim persistent or “unaddressed” breaches—even if we would have complied immediately if told.

—

3. Enforcement vs Prosecution: The Policy Contrast

Under Lincoln Council’s Enforcement Policy 2019–2024:

> “We will seek to resolve issues informally where possible… Formal action will be considered only where informal methods have been unsuccessful or where there is a serious risk.”

But in our case:

There was no attempt at informal engagement post-inspection.

No improvement notice, hazard awareness notice, or email warning was sent following the visit.

This means the formal route was pursued without exhausting—or even attempting—the informal route, in direct contradiction of policy.

Such behavior only makes sense if the goal is to create a prosecutable record, not to resolve issues.

—

4. Landlord is the Only Actor Who Can Rectify Hazards

This point is crucial:

The landlord is the only party who can physically or legally fix deficiencies in the property.

If genuine hazards were present, withholding that information makes no logical sense unless the aim is to preserve the allegged violations as a legal basis for enforcement.

It is analogous to a health officer witnessing contaminated food, saying nothing, and returning weeks later with a prosecution file—completely bypassing the public interest in resolving the problem first.

—

5. Pattern of Conduct Supports Intent to Prosecute

This is not an isolated incident:

Emails sent by the landlord with updates about ongoing improvements were ignored.

No clarification or follow-up questions were asked.

There was total silence until a formal legal step was initiated, which is procedurally strategic, not collaborative.

When this silence is paired with a delayed reveal of “findings,” it amounts to manufacturing the conditions necessary for prosecution while deliberately avoiding remedial dialogue.

6 Logical Contradiction: Allegged Deficiencies Discovered Only During Warranted Entry

If the newly raised issues were genuinely serious, number of troubling possibilities arise:

One of them Miss that these findings are used in the absence of a real substaital basis for the hard handed approach

Yet the council did not act after the first visit, and instead only raised new issues post-warrant. This undermines the argument that the deficiencies were:

Longstanding,

Known,

Or indicative of poor management.

Instead, it proves the contrary: that the deficiencies were either minor, not urgent, or not previously present, and therefore cannot logically justify penalty action based on the claim of “persistent failure to maintain” o n the contrary it is a strong indication of intension to take enforcement action (ie prosecution or civil penalties at all costs)

—

Conclusion: Prosecution, Not Protection, Was the True Aim

The conduct of the housing in this case departs from both the council’s enforcement policy and common sense standards of public protection. It illustrates:

Tactical suppression of information;

Procedural ambush instead of open communication;

Optimisation for legal enforcement rather than tenant safety.

Such behavior supports the conclusion that this was not a case of proactive enforcement, but rather a deliberately engineered process to secure a prosecutable or penalizable outcome, at the expense of both fairness and public interest.

Most of the alleged deficiencies cited after the 27 February 2025 warrant visit were not identified during the earlier inspection fatally undermines any case for prosecution or civil penalties. It also shows how this violates the Council’s own Enforcement Policy, making any enforcement action disproportionate and procedurally flawed.

—

1. Late Discovery of Alleged Deficiencies Undermines the Claim of Poor Management

If the council alleges that:

Significant deficiencies were found on 27 February 2025 (warranted inspection),

But those same deficiencies were not raised at the earlier inspection (when the council had full access),

Then:

The issues must either have arisen very recently, or

Were not obvious or considered serious by the inspecting officer at the time (octocebr 2024).

Therefore: To use them as evidence of “longstanding poor management” or “failure to maintain” the property is logically and legally inconsistent. They cannot be both recently discovered and long-term evidence of mismanagement.

—

2. Failure to Identify alleged Deficiencies in Earlier Visit Shows Lack of Serious Risk

According to the City of Lincoln Council Enforcement Policy (2019–2024), formal enforcement is meant to address:

> “Persistent non-compliance” or situations where “serious risk” exists.

But:

If the earlier visit did not result in any notice or warning about those new-alleged deficiencies,

Then the council either did not view them as serious at the time, or they did not exist.

This destroys the case that:

The landlord “knew or ought to have known” about the deficiencies.

The landlord “persistently failed to act.”

Instead, it points to selective post-facto enforcement, which is not supported by policy or case law (see R v Adaway [2004] – notice and opportunity are crucial).

—

3. Council Policy Requires Early, Informal Engagement – Not Surprise Penalties

The Council’s own Enforcement Policy states:

> “Officers will give advice and allow reasonable time for matters to be addressed before taking enforcement action.”

> “We aim to encourage voluntary compliance.”

Yet in this case:

No informal warnings or improvement notices were issued based on the original inspection.

The deficiencies were only raised after a second, surprise visit under warrant, with no prior notice and no opportunity to rectify.

This creates an ambush scenario, which precludes voluntary compliance and directly contradicts the stated purpose of enforcement.

—

4. No Evident Urgency Supports That These Were Not Imminent Hazards

If the alleged deficiencies were truly:

Serious enough to justify enforcement, and

Urgent in terms of health and safety,

Then the council would have:

Acted or issued formal warnings immediately after the first inspection.

Taken urgent action before the second inspection.

The fact that these deficiencies were:

Not mentioned earlier,

Not the subject of any urgent intervention, and

Only raised as evidence once legal proceedings were initiated,

Shows they were not considered critical, and are being retrospectively used to justify enforcement—which is an abuse of the regulatory process.

—

5. Using Newly Identified Issues as Grounds for Penalty is Unlawful in Spirit and Practice

Using new issues discovered during a warrant visit to build a case for poor management—without giving the landlord any opportunity to address them—is:

A violation of procedural fairness.

A breach of the council’s stated “education before enforcement” ethos.

An artificial construction of “non-compliance” where no non-compliance had been previously identified.

This tactic has been criticised in tribunal and judicial review contexts as disproportionate and unjust (see Southwark LBC v Ghulam [2020] – successful appeal where deficiencies were not previously raised).

6 Dangerous Precedent if Accepted

If this tactic is allowed to stand:

The council could routinely withhold feedback (no feedback provided after email update sent by the landlord on the work carried out in November 2024), apply for warrants, and fabricate non-compliance by relying on any new issues discovered—however recent or minor—during a surprise visit.

This could be applied selectively, creating a climate where:

Compliant landlords are ambushed;

Non-compliance is manufactured;

And regulatory power becomes a political or retaliatory weapon, not a safeguard for tenants. This is fundamentally unjust, and precisely the type of risk that judicial reviews, tribunal appeals, and procedural policies are meant to prevent.

7 Tribunal and Legal Precedent

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and higher courts have ruled repeatedly that:

> “Regulatory enforcement must not only be lawful, but proportionate, procedurally fair, and consistent with both local policy and national guidance.”

(See Southwark LBC v Ghulam [2020] and R v Adaway [2004]).

Enforcement based on new, previously unraised issues from a surprise visit without giving the landlord an opportunity to engage or comply is unlikely to survive challenge under this standard.

—

Conclusion

The council’s reliance on new deficiencies found during a warrant inspection—especially when those issues were not identified in earlier visits—amounts to a procedurally flawed, unjust, and potentially abusive enforcement strategy.

The council’s attempt to prosecute or penalise based on alleged deficiencies that were not identified during the first inspection is:

Factually weak – because it undermines any argument of persistent non-compliance.

Procedurally flawed – because it violates the Enforcement Policy’s requirement for early, informal engagement.

Legally vulnerable – because it denies the landlord a chance to rectify or explain.

This forms a strong basis for defence in any appeal, prosecution defense, or makes a strong case for an effective complaint to the obudsman.

How the council’s reliance on new issues found during a warranted inspection—which were not previously raised or acted upon—is a strong indication of a prosecutorial agenda, and not a genuine public interest enforcement process. It highlights how this behavior suggests a predetermined intention to prosecute, rather than to promote safety or compliance.

—

1. Selective Use of New Issues Signals a Backfilled Justification

When the council:

Fails to raise to guide the Ladlord after he submitted evidence of the to works carried out to archive compliance with the previous requests and remains silent( strategically), Then later applies for a warrant of entry and raises entirely new deficiencies as the primary evidence for enforcement,

This signals that they are not responding to known, alleged deficinecies—but rather searching for prosecutable material.

This is not enforcement led by risk. It is enforcement led by administrative inertia: the council, having initiated the machinery for prosecution (e.g., a warrant application, PACE process), must now justify it—regardless of whether the facts support the action.

—

2. Predetermined Prosecution = Biased Enforcement

By the time a warrant was applied for:

The council had already committed internal resources and begun preparing a formal case, (with the use of “strategis Silence”).

They were effectively “pot committed”—having invested time, paperwork, and officer action toward enforcement.

Discovery of “new” issues post-warrant serves more to validate that decision, rather than to ensure tenant safety.

This creates a confirmation bias in enforcement:

> Instead of objectively assessing risk, officers now seek anything that can retroactively justify enforcement even minor or easily correctable issues.Also see biased line of questioning tenants like”how many months was the bathroom out of order” instead of “how long was it out of order”

Such behaviour has been criticised in legal settings for being:

Disproportionate (Southwark v Ghulam [2020]), Unreasonable under Wednesbury principles, and Inconsistent with procedural fairness.

—

3. Fabricating the Narrative of Mismanagement

Using newly found issues to allege historic poor management is logically invalid:

If those issues had never been raised, and never observed before, then they cannot be used as evidence of long-term neglect.

Doing so amounts to manufacturing a narrative—not based on past conduct, but on opportunistic observation. This is an easy and well known ground for case dismissal by courts both criminal and first tier tribunals.

This is particularly dangerous because:

A council can repeat this tactic with any landlord: apply for warrant, find new issues, ignore past compliance, and issue penalties.

It eliminates the principle of engagement, which underlies most housing enforcement policies nationwide.

—

4. The Real Target Is Not Safety, but Prosecution Quotas or Penalty Revenue

The pattern of behavior suggests the council’s true objective may not be risk mitigation but:

Fulfilling internal enforcement targets, or

Generating penalty revenue, or

Justifying earlier enforcement action by ensuring it leads to prosecution. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that in year 2023 and 2024 Lincoln council was the top performing council in initiating prosecutions in the county (england and wales, excluding scotland and northern Ireland). Please note that this is based on preliminary data gathered in May 2015 and we are awaiting more data to paint a broader picture that could serve for embusdman enforcement at a later stage)

Where councils pursue enforcement despite prior compliance and without prior warning, it brings the integrity of the enforcement process into question.

This echoes judicial concern seen in R v Adaway [2004], where the court criticised authorities for pursuing prosecution without first pursuing appropriate, proportionate alternatives.

—

5. Omission of Prior Communication Proves Tactical Motivation

If the deficiencies were:

Serious enough to justify prosecution or civil penalty, And identified during the warrant inspection, But not disclosed at the time to the landlord (even though he is the only party who can act),

Then the only explanation is tactical concealment.

This strongly suggests:

The purpose was not to achieve compliance, but to build a prosecutable record without interference.

The non-disclosure was intentional, designed to preserve the “non-compliance” long enough to serve enforcement action.

This is fundamentally at odds with the Regulators’ Code and Enforcement Policy 2019–2024, both of which require early notification, support, and advice.

—

Conclusion

The council’s reliance on newly discovered deficiencies from a warrant-based inspection—particularly when:

These issues were raised previously;

No opportunity to rectify was given; and

No informal route was followed,

…strongly indicates a pre-existing prosecutorial intent. It suggests the council had already committed to prosecution and was merely fishing for evidence to justify it.

This turns the enforcement process from a regulatory tool into a coercive trap, setting a dangerous precedent for any landlord who engages in good faith but becomes the target of a council intent on penalisation.

How Inconsistencies, Falsehoods and Misleading Conduct by the Council Undermine Its Case

This page outlines how the investigation led by Hannah Cann, Housing Standards & Enforcement Officer at the City of Lincoln Council, concerning 63 Canwick Road, is deeply flawed. Based on extensive evidence, tenant statements, and written communications, it is clear that the council’s position is based on falsehoods, exaggerations, and procedural breaches. Any prosecution or civil penalty notice issued under these circumstances would reflect extremely poorly on the Council’s credibility.

1. False Allegation of “Poor Management”

The Council repeatedly claims that former officer Mark Sherwood described the HMO management as “poor.” However, no such statement has ever been produced in writing, despite multiple formal requests for disclosure.

On the contrary, multiple sworn statements confirm the opposite:

Tony Saxon (contractor): “The management of the property has always been very good.”
Yue Chu (visitor): “This has consistently been a very well-managed HMO.”
Zihao Zhou (tenant): “The high standard of management is why I chose to remain here long-term.”

This proves the allegation is entirely false and undermines the Council’s narrative.

2. Misrepresentation of Communal Room Use

The Council claims that the communal living room was improperly converted into a bedroom.

Tenant Conor McGoldrick submitted a sworn statement confirming:

He stayed in the communal room temporarily due to a ceiling leak in his bedroom.
No rent was charged.
He stayed there for less than a week and then returned to his room.
The use was clearly temporary and safety-related.

Other witnesses confirm the room was always a communal space. The Council’s portrayal of this as a breach is misleading and dishonest.

3. Fabricated Timeline of Bathroom Disrepair

During the February 2025 inspection, council officers asked how many “months” the upstairs bathroom had been out of use.

In truth:

Tenant Rashpinder Kaur confirms it was only 2–3 days.
McGoldrick confirmed the bathroom was repaired quickly.

The Council’s exaggeration was clearly intended to imply neglect and is not supported by the facts.

4. Concealment of Findings After the Warrant

The Council executed a warrant on 27 February 2025 at 7:00 AM. However, no findings were shared with the landlord until 11 April—more than six weeks later—and only in connection with a police-style interview under caution.

This lack of transparency violates the Council’s own enforcement policy, which requires early and open engagement.

5. Misleading Fire Safety Allegations

The Council claims there were fire safety breaches, including “deficient fire doors.”

In reality:

The only issue raised was minor—painted-over smoke seals.
These were replaced the same day.
The Fire Brigade inspected on 7 April 2025 and confirmed full compliance.

There was no valid basis for ongoing fire safety allegations.

6. Misuse of Technically True but Misleading Terms

The Council uses the term “operation of an unlicensed HMO” to imply intentional wrongdoing.

But this ignores context:

The landlord had already applied for a licence.
He proactively invited inspections.
The Council had full visibility into the application and property status.

Using the term without context is misleading and creates a false impression of guilt.

7. Disproportionate Enforcement Tactics

The 7:00 AM warrant execution on a licensed HMO, with no prior communication, is excessive and intimidating—especially considering:

The landlord has a documented history of cooperation since 2016.
The Fire Brigade recently confirmed compliance.
No risk was urgent or justified that level of intrusion.

This action was oppressive and counterproductive.

Conclusion: The Council’s Credibility Is Fatally Compromised

The following are evident:

The claim of poor management is false.
Allegations about fire safety and communal space are exaggerated or misrepresented.
Communication failures and concealment tactics show a lack of fairness.
The Council has acted in bad faith and abandoned its duty to follow a staged enforcement approach.

Any prosecution or civil penalty pursued under these circumstances would appear unjust, disproportionate, and would likely be discredited in court. The Council risks public criticism, legal failure, and reputational damage.

If you would like to see the tenant and witness statements, email correspondence, and inspection records that prove these points, contact us directly.

In particular, we respond to the allegation concerning the presence of an individual in the communal room on 27 February 2025. We submit that this allegation is entirely without merit. The incident relied upon by the Council was a brief, incidental, and isolated occurrence, taken wholly out of context.

We hold overwhelming evidence — including multiple sworn statements from all tenants — confirming that the room in question has consistently been used and maintained as a communal living space, fully compliant with the applicable legal requirements. All tenants confirm, without exception, that the room has at all times been available for communal use and has not been used as sleeping accommodation.

In addition to the witness statements, we possess substantial documentary evidence and historic records demonstrating that the room has long been equipped, furnished, and maintained as a communal area, and has been used as such without deviation.

The Council’s case appears to rest solely on a single temporary situation in which an individual, newly arrived at the property, was briefly seated in the communal room while awaiting allocation of his permanent accommodation upstairs. This was a transitional and incidental event, not reflective of the established use of the space. It cannot reasonably or lawfully be interpreted as evidence of a change of use or a breach of HMO management requirements.

Furthermore, we note that other allegations previously raised — including alleged fire safety breaches and roof disrepair — have been comprehensively addressed and disproven through independent expert evidence and maintenance records. This wider context strongly supports our position that the Council’s reliance on this isolated incident is disproportionate and unfounded.

We respectfully submit that the prosecution is entirely without justification or merit. The overwhelming evidence — both documentary and testimonial — will demonstrate that we have not only complied with but have consistently exceeded our legal obligations as landlords and managers.

In view of the above, we invite the Court to dismiss the proceedings in their entirety. Should this matter proceed further, we will seek the recovery of all costs incurred in the defence of this action, on the basis that the prosecution is without reasonable foundation and constitutes an abuse of process.

According to some sources in the 2023/24 financial year, the City of Lincoln Council initiated a total of 25 enforcement actions against landlords. Of these, 14 were formal court prosecutions, and 11 were civil penalty notices (CPNs) issued for breaches related to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) .

While the specific breakdown between licensed and unlicensed HMOs is not publicly detailed, it’s noteworthy that Lincoln was the highest prosecution levels in the country that period. For context, nearly half of English and Welsh councils reported zero landlord prosecutions over a five-year span.

The matters which the councils is seeking prosecutions or CPNs. These are:

Not serious and do not cause any material harm either to the tenants nor to the public. Not only it is very clear form the

Make the case of the highest prosecutions levels in enagland and whales compbined.,

According to same data which could find is seems that the pro