Automated Summary
Key Facts
The First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) refused rent repayment order applications in case LON/00AC/HMF/2021/0168. The applicants (five tenants) sought orders under section 43 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, alleging the respondents (Mill Cross Ltd. and Mr. Alex Rizavi) had control of an unlicensed HMO. The Tribunal determined that the applications were out of time for Mr. Rabone and Ms. Daly, and that there was insufficient evidence to show an offence was committed after 16 July 2020 for the other applicants. The decision was made on 1 March 2022 following a video hearing on 20 January 2022.
Issues
- The applicants needed to show that 5 or more people were living in the property at some point after 16 July 2020 to establish a continuing offence. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to meet the criminal standard of proof for this requirement.
- The tribunal examined whether the applicants' applications were made within 12 months of the alleged offence. The tribunal found that for some applicants, such as Mr. Rabone and Ms. Daly, their tenancies had ended before the 12-month window, making their applications out of time.
- The tribunal considered whether Mr. Rizavi, who was not the freeholder but was acting as an agent for the company (Mill Cross Ltd.), could be held liable for rent repayment orders. The tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence to show he was a landlord, so no orders could be made against him.
Holdings
- The Tribunal declined to make an order for reimbursement of fees under rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013, as the decision on the main application rendered such an order unjust and inequitable.
- The Tribunal refused rent repayment orders under section 43 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 because the application was made more than 12 months after the section 72 offence ended, exceeding jurisdictional time limits.
Remedies
The Tribunal refuses the applicants' applications for rent repayment orders under section 43 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, determining that the applications were out of time and that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Respondents had committed an offence under section 72 of the Housing Act 2004 within the relevant period. The Tribunal also makes no order for reimbursement of fees under rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal applied the criminal standard of proof ('beyond reasonable doubt') when determining whether a landlord had committed an offence under section 72 of the Housing Act 2004, which is required for making a rent repayment order under section 43 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
Precedent Name
Rakusen v Jepsen and others
Cited Statute
- Housing Act 2004
- Housing and Planning Act 2016
Judge Name
- S.J. Walker
- Mr. A. Lewicki FRICS.
Passage Text
- The Tribunal refuses the applications for Rent Repayment Orders under section 43 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
- It was satisfied that even if the Respondent had committed an offence under section 72 of the 2004 Act at some time prior to 16 July 2020, that offence came to an end when the number of occupants of the property fell below 5. There was insufficient evidence to show a continuation of such an offence at any time after 16 July 2020. This application was made more than 12 months after any section 72 offence came to an end, so the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make an order.
- Nowhere in the statement of case is there a mention of any other occupiers. The witness statements that have been provided are surprisingly lacking in detail as to who was living at the property when. With three exceptions which are referred to below, none of the statements refer even to the occupation of the property by the other Applicants, let alone by other people. There is no schedule which sets out who was in the property when. None of the Applicants who attended the hearing gave evidence of any other people being in occupation.