[2025] UKUT 161 (LC)

It is apparent from the proportion of the rent awarded (80%, which is unusually high for a licensing offence) that the FTT’s assessment must have been significantly influenced by conduct issues. Yet it dealt with these in a single sentence: “There were problems of disrepair and infestation, the occupation of the lounge by him and the housekeeper was a form of harassment”. It did not address the appellant’s case that necessary repairs were dealt with promptly. Nor did it explain why the presence of mice counted against the appellant, rather than against the respondents who were living in the property (on the appellant’s case, in considerable squalor). Nor did it make relevant findings to support its reliance on “harassment” (which had not been specifically alleged) as an aggravating factor.

When determining the amount of a rent repayment order, a tribunal would in principle be entitled to take into account conduct of a landlord which it was satisfied had been intended to intimidate a tenant. In this case, however, the FTT made no such finding and limited its reference to the evidence to Mr Farrell’s complaint that Lesley Nurse “occupied the living room being deliberately obstructive” and Mr Squires’ that there had been “random visits” by the appellant and Ms Nurse, and that she would spend several hours in the lounge. It referred to no evidence that the appellant himself had spent time in the lounge, nor did it suggest that any allegation of improper conduct or harassment had been put to him or to Ms Nurse (who had reason to be regularly in the property as she was employed as a cleaner).

The FTT also overlooked the fact that both the appellant and, with his permission, Ms Nurse, were entitled to be in the lounge. The respondents’ tenancy agreements were each for the occupation of a single room with the right to use the kitchen, bathroom and garden. None of the respondents was granted rights over the whole house and none of them was granted express rights to use the lounge. The tenancy agreement made it clear that the use of shared areas was to be with such others as the landlord might permit and the only parts of the building which the landlord was required to give notice before entering were the individual bedrooms (which were identified as “the property”). The appellant was therefore entitled to be in the lounge and a finding of “harassment” could only properly be made on some additional basis.

Had the FTT’s finding of harassment been the only ground of appeal I would have set aside its determination of the amount to be repaid. But as I have already set the decision aside in full it is not necessary to deal further with the quantum of the award.