Charles Snelling
Year of call: 2005

An experienced and respected leading junior barrister. He practises nationwide, having previously practised in London and the South East before moving to Cambridge. He is an excellent advocate and is well respected for his client care and an ability to see through issues and quickly grasp the key and central matters to allow an efficient resolution of the dispute. 

AREAS OF PRACTICE

Property Law: matters including possession hearings, ASBO injunctions and other regulatory offences, such as unlawful eviction (both civil and criminal), HMO licensing and allegations relating to fire safety. He has extensive experience of matters relating to the statutory control of residential dwellings under the Housing Act 2004. He regularly appears in the Residential Property Tribunal.

Public Law: he has extensive experience in all manner of cases involving Local Government (such as abatement notices and the implementation of civil penalties etc). Also, civil actions against the police (including actions for the return of property held by the police), judicial review, appeals to tribunal (such as the social entitlement chamber).

Crime: the full range of criminal law including serious multi-handed offences such as international money laundering allegations. He has acted as leading Counsel in a large-scale multi-handed drug conspiracy and international money laundering.


HIS WORK

Charles is regarded as a highly persuasive and articulate advocate who has built a reputation as an excellent trial lawyer. He has significant skill at cross-examination and holding people to account on behalf of clients.

He undertakes a wide range of technical regulatory work with a particular focus on matters involving Local Authorities. He offers advice to Local Authorities on the implementation of statutory regimes (such as selective licencing) and the drafting of the accompanying codes of conduct. He is able to offer advice on the full range of regulatory matters and is willing to attend meetings at the Council Offices prior to legal proceedings being instigated (as this can often resolve issues at an early stage saving both time and expense).

He regularly acts for taxi drivers their operators, and Public Houses and Public Events in issues relating to the obtaining or breaching of licences.

Mr Snelling is Direct Access trained and is able to assist and guide disputes in an understanding and professional manner.

Respected for his excellent client care and outstanding advocacy ability, Charles has an intuitive style and a proven track record of success. He is often instructed in both legally and factually complex cases and comes into his own when acting in a trial. Charles deals with an array of regulatory and related matters.

He regularly acts for the Local Authorities and Landlords in licensing and other regulatory matters. He has extensive experiences in the implementation and prosecution of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and the wider regulatory offences for housing standards. He advises Local Authorities on the application to Central Government for the granting of appropriate licences prior to their implementation.
He deals with the whole ambit of regulatory housing matters, including a specialism in Fire Safety offences under both the Housing Act 2004 and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES


PCC v Kaur – prosecuted the wife of a local solicitor for regulatory housing law matters which resulted in the judge referring her husband to the SRA.
PCC v Lal and others – prosecuted the husband of a Peterborough City Council Councillor for regulatory breaches of housing regulations. Successfully resisted several separate allegations of abuse of process made against the leaders of the council and secured convictions. Case was of media interest in Peterborough.
CCC v Coppola – a case arguing about the applicability of the POCA to recover rent paid to a landlord following the failure to comply with an Improvement notice. Successfully argued that POCA is not available for such notices as it does not create a prohibition.
PCC v Serstena – acted for Council against a Council Tenant who owned her own property as well. Recovered over £30k in Proceeds of Crime application following convictions for fraud.

PCC v Lets Move Estate Agents – 4 days RPT trial dealing with the refusal of granting 80 selective licences in which he successfully argued that the agency was not a fit and proper person and licences were refused.
CCC v Croft - successfully argued that the requirement to put in smoke detectors did not require compliance with the LACORS guidance (the fact that they were not interlinked did not create a criminal offence under the HMO Management Regulations). Case dropped after extensive legal arguments and before trial.
IBC v Miza - successfully argued that the requirement to put in smoke detectors did not require compliance with the LACORS guidance under Council Guidance and the HMO Management Regulations. Case dropped at the end of the prosecution case.
LBC v Akhtar – successfully argued that the requirement to put in smoke detectors did not require compliance with the LACORS guidance. Company accepted minor offences and case dropped against owner of letting agency.

 

QUALIFICATIONS
LL.B (Hons.), King's College London, 2002 Member: South Eastern Circuit (and Cambridge and Peterborough Bar Mess) Criminal Bar Association