Automated Summary
Key Facts
The First-Tier Tribunal ordered Ms. Yafang Hu to pay £17,500 by way of rent repayment order to Mr. Fathi on behalf of six student tenants who occupied 24 Edward Parker Road, Bristol. The Tribunal found Ms. Hu, as the landlord, had committed the offence of controlling and managing an unlicensed House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) contrary to section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 from 1 September 2020 to 8 June 2021. The property was required to be licensed as an HMO under the Mandatory licensing scheme, but Ms. Hu failed to obtain a valid licence during the relevant period. The Tribunal rejected Ms. Hu's defence that she relied on her managing agent (IletPro Limited) to handle licensing matters, finding she had a contractual obligation to ensure the property was licensed. The Tribunal also ordered reimbursement of £300 in application and hearing fees.
Issues
- The Tribunal ordered £17,500 for rent repayment, representing 69% of the maximum possible amount of £25,391.67, after considering the seriousness of the offence, the Respondent's financial circumstances, and the Applicants' conduct.
- The Tribunal found the Respondent had no reasonable excuse for not licensing the property as an HMO, as she refused to follow her agent's advice to apply for a licence due to concerns about her mortgage.
- The Tribunal determined the Respondent committed the offence of controlling or managing an unlicensed HMO under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 from 1 September 2020 to 8 June 2021, with no reasonable excuse.
- The Tribunal found Mr. Kincaid was a valid claimant for the rent repayment order as the Applicants formed a united entity under the tenancy agreement, and the application was made within 12 months of the alleged offence.
Holdings
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay Mr Fathi on behalf of the Applicants the sum of £17,500 by way of a rent repayment order and to reimburse Mr Fathi with the application and hearing fees in the sum of £300 within 56 days from the date of this decision. The Tribunal found that the Respondent committed the offence of control or management of an unlicensed HMO contrary to section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 from 1 September 2020 to 8 June 2021, and determined a RRO in the sum of £17,500 which amounts to 69 per cent of the maximum amount payable of £25,391.67.
Remedies
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay Mr Fathi on behalf of the Applicants £17,500 by way of a rent repayment order and to reimburse Mr Fathi with the application and hearing fees in the sum of £300 within 56 days from the date of this decision. The Tribunal directed Mr Fathi to apportion the rent repayment order amongst the Applicants in proportion to their contribution towards the rent paid.
Monetary Damages
17800.00
Legal Principles
- For the reasonable excuse defence under section 72(5) of the Housing Act 2004, the Tribunal applied the civil standard of proof, which is 'on the balance of probabilities'. The Tribunal determined that the Respondent did not have reasonable excuse for not licensing the property as an HMO.
- The Tribunal determined that the offence of having no licence for an HMO under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 is one of strict liability, meaning the Respondent was liable regardless of intent. The Tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent committed the offence from 1 September 2020 to 8 June 2021.
Precedent Name
- Amanda Williams v Kishan Parmar
- Rhodes and Quilter v Mannering
- Aytan and others v Moore and others
- Vadamalayan v Stewart
Cited Statute
- Housing and Planning Act 2016
- Housing Act 2004
Judge Name
- J Reichel
- Tildesley OBE
- M Jenkinson
Passage Text
- The Tribunal orders the Respondent to pay Mr Fathi on behalf of the Applicants the sum of £17,500 by way of a rent repayment order and to reimburse Mr Fathi with the application and hearing fees in the sum of £300 within 56 days from the date of this decision. The Tribunal directs Mr Fathi to apportion the sum of £17,500 amongst the Applicants in proportion to their contributions towards the rent paid, and repay whoever has paid the application and hearing fees.
- The Tribunal having weighed up the various factors determines a RRO in the sum of £17,500 which amounts to 69 per cent of the maximum amount payable of £25,391.67, and is in the Tribunal's view a fair reflection of the seriousness of the Respondent's offending as against the mitigation and the adverse impact of the Applicants' conduct.
- The Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the above facts that the Respondent was a person having control of and managing the property which was an HMO requiring to be licensed. The offence of having no licence for an HMO under section 72(1) of the 2004 is one of strict liability.