[2024] UKUT 255 (LC)

That Mr Kumar was not a landlord of the respondents within the meaning of section 40, 2016 Act, and received no rent from them so the FTT had no jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order against him.

That Mr Kumar could not commit an offence under section 72(1), 2004 Act, because he was neither a “person having control” nor a “person managing” the House within the meaning section 263, 2004 Act.

That the FFT had failed to deal properly with the defence of reasonable excuse.

That the FTT had wrongly based its calculation of the amount of rent to be repaid on the amount received by LML rather than on the amount received by Mr Kumar, and had wrongly taken account of conduct by LML which could not be relevant to an award against Mr Kumar.