![[2025] UKUT 265 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
The background and the FTT’s decision and the outcome of the appeal
The appellant Ms Jamroz lived at 92A Hampton Road, London E7, from July 2006 to 10 April 2023; she was the tenant from 2015. Her landlord was Mr Mohammed Ali, who bought the property in 2004. The property is in the London Borough of Newham; until 28th February 2023 it was in an area designated as a selective licensing area, but the landlord did not have a licence. Accordingly, the last date on which the landlord could have committed the offence of managing the property without a selective licence was 28 February 2023, and for the FTT to have jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order in response to that offence the application had to be received by it by the end of 27th February 2024.
The appellant made an application to the FTT for a rent repayment order by email sent at 11:15 p.m. on 27 February 2024. The FTT held that it was out time and that it did not have jurisdiction.
As I said above that decision was made before the Tribunal made its decision in Gorgievski, which is binding on the FTT. That case makes the position clear and the outcome of the appeal inevitable: the application was made in time and the FTT did have jurisdiction.
Accordingly I have not needed to consider the further matters raised by the submissions filed by Mr McGowan on 15 April 2025, largely seeking to persuade the Tribunal that its decision in Moh v Rimal was incorrect. I have not understood why that is relevant to the ground of appeal for which permission was given, and the interesting arguments raised in Mr McGowan’s submissions will have to wait for another day. The appeal succeeds in any event.
Helpfully the FTT made further findings, in case it was wrong about jurisdiction, that the landlord had committed the relevant offence, and determined the amount of the rent repayment order that it would make in the event that it was wrong about jurisdiction. Those alternative findings now take effect and the landlord must repay to the appellant rent in the sum of £2,790, together with the FTT fees of £320, within 28 days of the date of this decision.
Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke
11 August 2025
Right of appeal
Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right of appeal may be exercised only with permission. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be sent or delivered to the Tribunal so that it is received within 1 month after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties (unless an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties, in which case an application for permission to appeal must be made within 1 month of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision on costs is sent to the parties). An application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal a further application may then be made to the Court of Appeal for permission.