AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)
Ref: LON/OOAP/HMF/2024/0149
B e f o r e :
____________________
GLORELL MARIE BANNISTER |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
JOSEPH AKINREMI |
Respondent |
|
16 Dawlish Road, Tottenham, London, N17 9HP |
____________________
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
HOUSING – RENT REPAYMENT ORDER – order made by the First-tier Tribunal against a tenant of the property found to have been the landlord's agent and to have been a person having control of the property – order made without jurisdiction
Introduction
The law: rent repayment orders
"(1) This Chapter confers power on the First-tier Tribunal to make a rent repayment order where a landlord has committed an offence to which this Chapter applies.
(2) A rent repayment order is an order requiring the landlord under a tenancy of housing in England to—
(a) repay an amount of rent paid by a tenant, or
(b) pay a local housing authority an amount in respect of a relevant award of universal credit paid (to any person) in respect of rent under the tenancy."
The factual background
"2. The property is described as a 6 bedroom house with shared living room, kitchen and bathroom facilities. Each of the bedrooms was let separately to tenants as living accommodation. The Respondent occupied one of the bedrooms.
3. The freehold of the property is owned by a Mrs Ramdoo. However, on her own case, the Respondent would relet the rooms from time to time, collect the rent and deposit (if any) from the tenants and arrange for any repairs to be carried out. She said that she had done so since 2017 and asserted that she did so on behalf of Mrs Ramdoo and did not benefit financially from the arrangement.
4. At all material times, the Applicant only dealt with the Respondent. On or about 28 April 2023, she granted him a verbal monthly periodic tenancy of one of the bedrooms in the property at a monthly rent of £590 including the cost of utility bills. On 7 April 2023, the Applicant paid a deposit of £590 to the Respondent, which was not protected under a tenancy deposit scheme. Throughout his tenancy, the Applicant also paid his rent directly to the Respondent.
5. It was common ground that the property was an HMO and was not licensed as was required by the London Borough of Haringey under its mandatory licensing scheme. At no time during the Applicant's occupation was the property licensed.
6. It seems that on 6 March 2024, a heated discussion took place between the Applicant and various other tenants. This resulted in the Respondent purporting to give a written notice dated the same day terminating his tenancy on 6 April 2024.
7. On 2 April 2024, the Applicant had a violent altercation with another resident at the property, which resulted in him being charged with ABH. As part of his bail conditions, the Applicant could not return to the property unless he was escorted by a police officer. As at the date of this hearing, the Applicant was waiting on the date for his Crown Court trial in relation to this charge. The Applicant's tenancy ended on 30 April 20204 when he attended the property with a police officer to collect his belongings and, effectively, surrendered his tenancy on that date.
8. Subsequently, the Applicant made this application dated 2 April 2024 for rent repayment order limited to the 11 month period in respect of which he paid rent in the sum of £6,490 plus the deposit of £590."
"16. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal made the following findings of fact beyond reasonable doubt:
(a) that the property was a house occupied by 5 or more unrelated persons who shared relevant amenities and was therefore, required to be licensed under a mandatory licensing scheme pursuant to sections 61(1) and 55 respectively in the Housing Act 2004.
(b) that the property was not licensed during the Applicants' occupation. Therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent had committed an offence under section 72(1) of the Act.
17. In addition, on balance, the Tribunal found that the Respondent was a person having control of the property within the meaning of sections 263(1) of the 6 Housing Act even if she was doing so on behalf of Mrs Ramdoo. This was based on the Respondent's admission that she let the rooms in the property from time to time, collected the rents and deposits (if any), arranged for repairs to be carried out and, indeed, purported terminate the Applicant's tenancy by serving a written notice in her own name. The Tribunal was satisfied that these were all the acts of someone who was clearly in control of the property, albeit on behalf of Mrs Ramdoo."
The appeal
Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke
12 June 2025
Right of appeal
Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right of appeal may be exercised only with permission. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be sent or delivered to the Tribunal so that it is received within 1 month after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties (unless an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties, in which case an application for permission to appeal must be made within 1 month of the date on which the Tribunal's decision on costs is sent to the parties). An application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal a further application may then be made to the Court of Appeal for permission.