Fletcher & Anor v Portsmouth City Council (HOUSING - HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION - whether licence conditions appropriate) [2026] UKUT 234 (LC) (26 June 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal heard an appeal by Simon and Iva Fletcher against Portsmouth City Council over the appropriateness of HMO licence conditions imposed at 1 Sheffield Road, Portsmouth, and considered six grounds challenging those conditions. It reviewed the statutory framework under the Housing Act 2004, the First-tier Tribunal’s approach, and the Council’s use of standard form conditions applied across Portsmouth.

Key points

• Parties: Simon and Iva Fletcher v Portsmouth City Council; dispute concerned HMO licence conditions for 1 Sheffield Road, Portsmouth.
• Issue: whether the licence conditions were appropriate under section 67 of the Housing Act 2004, including the relationship with mandatory conditions in Schedule 4.
• The Tribunal set out the appeal approach from Hussain: the FTT must decide whether the licensing decision was wrong at the time, giving the authority due deference.
• The judgment notes the Council used 36 standard-form conditions across the city, aligned with other licensing schemes and developed after consultation.
• It also addressed whether regulation 15(1)-(3) of the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 applied to the licence conditions, but the source text provided does not show the final outcome of that issue.
• No sanctions/export-control or national-security subject matter appears in the source text.

Why it matters

This is primarily a housing-regulation decision, not a sanctions or export-control case, so its direct geopolitical relevance is limited. Its significance for sovereign-risk or enforcement analysis lies in how the Tribunal frames local authority licensing discretion, especially where standardised conditions are imposed across a jurisdiction.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the source text shows that challenges to HMO licence conditions are assessed against the statutory power to impose conditions the authority considers appropriate, with mandatory conditions and the authority’s broader regulatory role carefully distinguished. The use of city-wide standard conditions and consultation suggests authorities should be able to evidence a structured policy basis for licence terms, while appellants must target specific conditions and the tribunal’s assessment of whether the FTT correctly applied the Hussain approach.