[2024] UKUT 69 (LC)

The FTT applied the Tribunal’s guidance in Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC), quoting the four-step approach recommended in paragraph 20 of that decision and following it.

The full amount of the rent paid for the period in question was £30,000 and the tenants had been responsible for all bills, so the FTT considered what adjustments should be made to that headline figure.

Although the FTT’s assessment of quantum comprised a single paragraph, that paragraph came after a much longer section headed “conduct of the parties”. There had been a series of complaints about blocked toilets, overflowing drains, fire alarms not functioning and failure to supply gas and electricity safety certificates at the commencement of the tenancy. The FTT was also critical of the attempt to persuade the tenants to sign a new tenancy agreement and the decision to serve notice when the tenants refused to leave voluntarily. The former criticism was justified, since the suggestion that a new agreement be entered into was presumably intended to disguise the true arrangement. The FTT acknowledged that the selective licence first obtained by Mr Shah in 2016 had been renewed on an application made in October 2020. But a selective licence did not permit the use of a property as an HMO and the FTT found that the appellants were aware that an HMO licence was required. The selective licence is not mentioned again in the later assessment of conduct and the FTT does not appear to have given Mr Shah much, if any, credit for having obtained it (it was considerably cheaper than an HMO licence). Nevertheless, it is not possible to say that the FTT failed to take the selective licence into account since it specifically dealt with it under the heading of “conduct” and it had reminded itself that issues of conduct were relevant to the quantum of the repayment order.

Having directed itself by reference to the guidance given by this Tribunal, the final assessment of the appropriate level of the award was a matter for the FTT which had heard all of the evidence and formed a view of the seriousness of the offence which it is not possible for this Tribunal to replicate. The FTT’s determination that the offence was sufficiently serious to justify repayment of 70% of the rent was not inconsistent with the general level of awards for licensing offences, which vary widely depending on the circumstances of the case. Mr Hart was unable to point to any specific omission or error in the assessment of the evidence or the determination of quantum and I therefore refuse the appeal on this ground too.