An Upper Tribunal has ruled that a First Tier Property Tribunal (FTT) improperly exercised its discretion by requiring a banned landlord to end existing tenancies without properly considering the effect on his tenants.

104-year-old landlord Jama Ahmed Farrah was served with the order by Sheffield City Council under section 15 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, preventing him from acting as a landlord following conviction for two offences under section 1(3A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. At a previous hearing, Farrah accepted he was unable to manage his properties and proposed that his adult children would do so.

However, in September 2025 the FTT did not find that suggestion satisfactory and ruled the banning order would take effect “on termination of the current tenancies of the respondent’s properties. Each such tenancy is to be brought to an end on the first possible date following the date of this order”.

Judge Cooke at the Upper Tribunal said: “It is very troubling to see an order requiring the landlord to bring tenancies to an end without express and careful consideration of the interests of the tenants.”

Provision

She added: “Taking first the provision that the banning order was to take effect ‘on termination of the current tenancies of the respondent's properties’, in my judgment that order was irrational.”

She said the order was irrational because it depended on all existing tenancies ending, an event that might never occur. The Upper Tribunal also said the original order left open the possibility that the landlord could let another property before the ban took effect.

She set aside the FTT’s order concerning ending tenancies and substituted a new banning order under which Farrah is banned until 10 September 2030 from letting or managing property.

Concluded

Judge Cooke added: “The effect of the order I now make is that if the tenancies that existed at the date of the FTT’s order have now all been brought to an end, then the order is now in effect without exception.

“If any of the tenancies that existed at the date of the FTT's order is still in existence, then the banning order will take effect in relation to each such property three months after the date of this appeal decision, or when Mr Farrah ceases to be the landlord of the property, whichever is the earlier.”

She concluded: “It is clear from the FTT proceedings that Mr Farrah's adult children are supporting him and there are obvious arrangements that Mr Farrah could make with them so as to cease to be the landlord, without disturbing the tenants. Second, Mr Farrah has now had many months to make appropriate arrangements and a further three moths gives him a generous time in which to complete them.”

Property lawyer David Smith (pictured left) says although banning orders are pretty rare, he suspects more will be sought post the Renters’ Rights Act. Smith, partner at Bishop & Sewell, adds: “The ruling means that these orders will have to be much more carefully thought through and could be challenged in future if they are not.”

‍