The Tenants’ case before the FTT
19.The Tenants filed evidence in support of their application which included a witness statement prepared by a Housing Officer employed by Hackney Council, Mr MFum. He gave evidence that the flat was an unlicensed HMO and described what he had found when he inspected it on 10 September 2020, including that the staircase and corridors were fitted with a linked smoke alarm. Mr MFum said that he was experienced in the assessment of housing standards, but the only defect which he pointed out in the flat itself was that the smoke detector fitted in the kitchen “was loose and hanging off the ceiling”; He added that this defect needed to be remedied at the earliest opportunity “in order to provide an effective early warning in the event of fire” and that “failure to remedy the defective fire detector element within the shared kitchen constitute an offence” namely a breach of the requirement of regulation 4(2) of the HMO Management Regulations that the manager of an HMO must “ensure that any fire fighting equipment and fire alarms are maintained in good working order”. Mr MFum did not say that he had tested the smoke detector, nor did he say that it was not working but his description of it as “defective” suggests that he considered that the detector was not in good working order.20.The only other matter of concern to Mr MFum was a “defective and misleading Fire Notice” displayed in the common parts of the building which advised residents, if they discovered a fire, to call the fire brigade and “state 6 Somerford Grove”. He did not suggest in terms that this was a breach of the HMO Management Regulations, but he was concerned that in the event of a fire it might cause the fire brigade to be misdirected. As Mr MFum pointed out, 6 Somerford Grove has a separate entrance, and the correct address of the building in which the flat is located is 2-4 Somerford Grove. 21.Mr MFum’s evidence was not challenged by the Landlord.22.Evidence was also given by Dr Osserman with supporting witness statements from the other Tenants. In his statement Dr Osserman identified a number of issues of concern to them. He described the history of complaints about work required to the flat and to the common parts of the building and referred to a more recent delay in repairing the boiler in February and March 2021 which had meant that his bedroom was inaccessible for a week while works were undertaken. He also described the establishment of the tenants’ association, his correspondence with the Landlord at the start of the pandemic, and the publicity given to the landlord’s unsympathetic response. He explained that he had been told by one of the security guards that Tower Quay had given him and his colleagues instructions to film him. Finally, he referred to the first two section 21 notices and concluded his evidence by stating: “Given the poor conduct I have described, I believe our landlord should be subject to the maximum penalty permitted under law”.23.The Tenants were represented by Mr Sprack at the hearing before the FTT. In a skeleton argument he argued that the appropriate rent repayment order should be “at the top of the range”. He relied on six examples of poor conduct by the Landlord taken from the evidence of Dr Osserman and Mr MFum.