George Penny

Cases

Rent Repayment Orders and Housing Law

George is frequently instructed to appear in appellate and high-value first-instance Rent Repayment Order cases. He also provides advice to those facing or considering Rent Repayment Order proceedings.

Recent significant cases include:

Global 100 Ltd. v Jimenez and Ors. [2023] EWCA Civ 1324

George appeared (lead by Justin Bates, Landmark Chambers) for the occupant respondents, having appeared alone for the majority of the occupant respondents at the First-tier and Upper tribunal hearings (the others self-representing at that time). His clients were successful on each occasion on technical questions of statutory construction.

Cottam & Ors. v. Lowe Management Limited [2023] UKUT 306 (LC)

George appeared for the applicants in this case at first instance and by written representations on appeal, concerning the definition of a “person managing” or “having control” of a property. Findings against his clients at first instance were overturned on appeal. George also appears for both local authorities and landlords in other kinds of housing criminal prosecution, and provides advice on all areas of housing law.

Criminal Defence

R. v. A

George’s client was acquitted of criminal damage and assault, despite the prosecution presenting photographs of the damaged items and injuries to the complainants.

R. v. B

George’s client was acquitted of coercive and controlling behaviour and associated offences following a 2-day trial in which he demonstrated key elements of the complainant’s account to be false.

R. v. P

George’s client was acquitted of racially aggravated s.20 GBH after self-defence was successfully demonstrated.

Youth Court

George is qualified to appear in the Youth Court and is regularly instructed to appear for youths charged with serious offences.

R. v. S

George’s client was acquitted of drug supply offences after successfully raising a defence of modern slavery.

R. v. T

George represented a client accused of s.18, two attempted s.18s, and being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs. George’s client was acquitted of the attempted s.18s and found guilty on an “excessive self-defence” basis of the s.18 following a 4-day trial involving cell-site material, Drill rap evidence, CCTV, and multiple witnesses with complex vulnerabilities. George was also required to advise, and make argument, on the proper sentencing regime where his client had turned 18 during the course of his trial.