[2025] UKUT 194 (LC)

321 Haslebury Road, London N9 is a three-bedroom flat with a living-room used as an extra bedroom. The first respondent Miss Lopez Hernandez lived there from 28 February 2022 until 31 July 2022, and the second respondent Miss Balota lived there from 26 March 2022 to 26 December 2022. The appellant was their landlord. After leaving the property they applied together for rent repayment orders. Miss Lopez Hernandez sought the sum of £3,083 and Miss Balota sought £5,600.

Each made a witness statement. Miss Lopez Hernandez said she lived at the property with two other tenants, Miss Balota and “Anami”, who each had their own room. Miss Balota said that “there were always three tenants living at the property (me and 2 other people).” She added that the others were initially Miss Lopez Hernandez and Anami, and that when Miss Lopez Hernandez moved out in July there was first “Yasmin” and later “Hande”.

At the hearing before the FTT the appellant relied principally on her contention that the two applicants had been licensees not tenants; but because of the way that tenants are defined in the 2004 Act that did not assist her. She also argued that there were no occupiers other than the applicants (because if there were only two occupiers the property would still be an HMO but would not have required a licence). The FTT believed the evidence of the respondents and found that for most of the period of the claim there were three people in occupation of the property. It did not believe the appellant’s evidence and said:

“Her assertion that Anami was never a permanent resident and was just a friend of her daughter was not at all convincing, nor was her assertion that Ms Balota was lying wgen stating that Yasmin and Hande were fellow occupiers.”

The FTT therefore found that the house was an HMO that required a licence and did not have one, and it found that the appellant was managing or in control of it. It rejected her defence of reasonable excuse. It went on to make a rent repayment order, but only ordered repayment of 20% of the sums claimed because of a number of mitigating factors.