[2025] UKUT 161 (LC)

The respondents’ application for rent repayment orders was sent by email to the FTT after close of business on 27 November 2023. When a copy was served on the appellant by the FTT’s staff he was informed that it had been received on 28 November, although the email filing the application was recorded as having been sent at 23.37 the previous night.

The application was considered by the FTT at a hearing at which it received lengthy written and oral evidence from four of the five tenants, from the appellant and from Lesley Nurse. The FTT dealt with this evidence concisely in its decision published on 3 September 2024. It referred to Mr Farrell’s evidence that Lesley Nurse had become hostile towards the end of his occupation - “She occupied the living room being deliberately obstructive” - and that some items of disrepair at the property had remained unresolved. Two of the tenants, Mr Griffiths and Mr Squires, had referred to a “mice infestation” which took some time for the appellant to deal with. Mr Squires also said that there had been “random visits” from the appellant and his housekeeper, and that she “would spend several hours in the lounge”. The only reference in the decision to anything which either the appellant or Lesley Nurse had told the FTT was that he owned two other properties, one of which he let out.

The main body of the FTT’s decision comprised an account of the law relating to HMO licensing and rent repayment orders, including reference to five of this Tribunal’s decisions. That account did not mention the statutory defence of reasonable excuse or any of the authorities which consider it.

The FTT’s substantive determination was comprised in two paragraphs, which were separated by a calculation of the rent which the respondents had paid; the substantive paragraphs are as follows:

“Determination

34.

In this case there was no dispute that the premises were unlicensed when they should have been. The Respondent sought to argue that his previous agents (Kingsman) had failed to tell him to get a license when they were managing the property. At the time of the Applicants’ occupation however the premises were being managed by the Respondent because Kingsman had gone into liquidation. We do not find the Respondent’s account credible and even if it was the onus was on him to determine if the property needed a licence. The conduct of the landlord overall was poor. There were problems of disrepair and infestation, the occupation of the lounge by him and the housekeeper was a form of harassment. The conduct of the tenants was generally good.

…

38.

The failure to license offence is serious but not as serious as other offences such as unlawful eviction. Nonetheless we do take into account the landlord’s poor conduct as indicated above. We also take into account the fact that the Respondent has no previous convictions as far as we are aware. We consider that an award of 80% of the rental value is appropriate in this case.”

The awards to the five tenants varied between £6,353 and £7,768 and totalled £33,668. The FTT also directed that the appellant to reimburse the application and hearing fees which the respondents had paid, totalling £700.