Automated Summary
Key Facts
The First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) ruled on case LON/00AZ/HMF/2019/0028 regarding a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) application by Miss Samantha Podmore against Farmhold Investments Limited. The respondent, a professional landlord managing a four-bedroom flat above commercial premises at 191 Lewisham High Street, London SE13 6AA, failed to obtain an HMO license under Lewisham's additional licensing scheme. The tribunal found the respondent committed an offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 for operating an unlicensed HMO. The offence period was determined to be from 20 June 2018 to 2 May 2019. The tribunal ordered the respondent to repay £4,143 to the applicant, considering the conduct of both parties and the landlord's failure to adequately investigate licensing requirements despite being aware of the additional scheme.
Issues
- The tribunal needed to determine the period during which the respondent's failure to license the HMO constituted an offence, specifically whether the offence ceased on May 2, 2019 when the respondent made a timely application for an HMO licence.
- The tribunal needed to determine if the respondent committed an offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 by failing to license a house in multiple occupation (HMO) that required licensing under the additional scheme introduced by Lewisham Council.
- The tribunal needed to determine the extent to which it should exercise its discretion in ordering a Rent Repayment Order (RRO), considering the circumstances of the case and the requirements of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
- The tribunal needed to determine the appropriate amount of the Rent Repayment Order, taking into account the conduct of both landlord and tenant, the financial circumstances of the landlord, and whether the landlord had previously been convicted of relevant offences.
Holdings
The tribunal determined that the respondent committed an offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 by failing to license a house in multiple occupation (HMO) that required licensing under the additional licensing scheme in the London Borough of Lewisham. The tribunal found that the respondent, as a professional landlord, had no reasonable excuse for failing to license the property and was not entitled to a defence under section 72(5) of the 2004 Act. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) of £4,143 to the applicant for the period from 20 June 2018 to 2 May 2019, after considering the conduct of the parties, the financial circumstances of the landlord, and the fact that the respondent's application for an HMO licence was duly made on 2 May 2019.
Remedies
The tribunal awarded a Rent Repayment Order of £4,143 to the applicant, payable within 28 days, for the respondent's failure to obtain a required HMO licence for the property at Flat Above, 191 Lewisham High Street, London SE13 6AA. The offence period was determined to be from 20 June 2018 to 2 May 2019.
Monetary Damages
4143.00
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard under section 43(1) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to determine the respondent's offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004, rejecting the reasonable excuse defence based on the landlord's failure to proactively verify licensing requirements despite council notification obligations.
Precedent Name
- Fallon v Wilson
- Parker v Waller
- Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas
Cited Statute
- Housing and Planning Act 2016
- Housing Act 2004
Judge Name
Judge Pittaway
Passage Text
- The tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent has committed an offence under section 72(1) of the 2004 Act and does not consider that the respondent had a reasonable excuse for committing the offence. There is no obligation on Lewisham to notify each person individually of its additional licensing scheme. The notification requirements set out in The Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006 do not require this, and Ms Dodds has not submitted that these publication requirements of these regulation had not been met.
- Taking into account the conduct of the parties the tribunal determines that the respondent should be required to repay to the applicant by way of RRO the sum of £4,143.
- The tribunal have accepted that the respondent's application was duly made on 2 May 2019. It notes Ms Podmore's submission that she did not consider it fair that the offence ceases on the date of the application is made and that the respondent should have acted more promptly. However, the tribunal having decided that the application was duly made on 2 May 2019, the offence ceases, by statute, on that date.