[2023] UKUT 233 (LC)

On 16 September 2020 the respondents entered into a tenancy agreement with the three appellants and two other tenants, Federico Pantaleoni and Yehia Shamseldin. As there were five occupiers the property was a house in multiple occupation, and was required to be licensed under Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 until Yehia Shamseldin died on 23 June 2021. The property was not licensed.

Section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 makes provision for a tenant to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a rent repayment order where a landlord has committed one of several specified offences including the offence of being in control of or managing a house in multiple occupation which was required to be licensed and was not, under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004. The respondents made an application to the FTT for a rent repayment order in May 2022.

The FTT found that the offence had been committed and it decided to make a rent repayment order. It recorded that the rent for the property was £2,817 per month, and that the total for the period 16 September 2020 to 23 June 2021 was therefore £26,001. It said at its paragraph 19:

“The rent was paid by Ms Samuel, who acted, with the agreement of all parties, as the lead tenant in respect of rent. It was accepted that Ms Samuel collected rent from the other Applicants, and, when she had done so, paid the rent to the

Respondents from her account.

20.

On the evidence, therefore, each of the Applicants in this application, as

a matter of substance, paid a fifth of the total, and that three fifths of

the total that was paid over from Ms Samuel’s bank account was the

total of their personal contributions.

The FTT decided that since applicant had paid one fifth of the rent the maximum possible rent repayment order was £5,200 per applicant. The FTT rejected the argument that the rent repayment order should be calculated by reference to the whole of the rent on the basis that each tenant was jointly and severally liable for the whole under the terms of the tenancy agreement.

The FTT went on to consider the seriousness of the offence and the conduct of the parties, and ordered that the appellants repay £3,640 to each of the three tenants, representing 70% of the maximum. Subsequently it gave the appellants permission to appeal its decision that the repayment was to be calculated by reference to the rent they had paid rather than to the whole of the rent.