The FTT’s decision
23.In its decision the FTT summarised the statements of case and written evidence of both parties. Four of the five appellants attended the hearing and gave oral evidence, and each confirmed that the property was their main residence. The FTT’s account of the evidence largely followed the witness statements and said nothing whatsoever about the occupation of the property by Ms Tseng other than confirming the dates she had lived there. The FTT had clearly not overlooked the significance of Ms Tseng’s status because it recorded counsel for the respondents’ submission that no evidence had been provided about her and that it could not be assumed that she had occupied the property as her only or principal home.24.The part of the FTT’s decision which is material to this appeal is paragraph 40, where it said this:“However, the tribunal is only able to make a rent repayment order if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence under section 72(1) had been committed. In that regard the Tribunal accepts the submissions of [counsel for the respondents] that, within the period in respect of which the claim has been made in the statement of case, there were a maximum of four tenants who had provided witness statements. The Tribunal accepts counsel’s submission that it has no evidence as to the relevant status of Yung-Ru Tseng and could not therefore be satisfied that she met the necessary qualifications to permit the making of a rent repayment order.”25.The FTT also dealt with the presence of the Brazilian family for a period of 8 days in July 2020 finding that the period of their occupation was not part of the period in respect of which the application was made. For those reasons the FTT found that the allegation that the respondents had committed the offence of being in control of an unlicensed HMO had not be proven and the claim therefore failed.