Automated Summary
Key Facts
Two applicants, Lodovico Scarpa and Axelle Tir, sought Rent Repayment Orders (RROs) against SC Osney Lane Management Limited for unlicensed house-in-multiple-occupation (HMO) offences at Student Castle, Oxford. The respondent admitted to two separate licensing breaches: the first from 31 January 2017 to 24 January 2021, and the second from 10 June 2021 to 15 September 2021. The tribunal ruled that claims for the first period (2017-2021) were time-barred under section 41(2)(b) of the 2016 Act, as both applications were filed after 25 January 2021. Claims for the second period (2021-2021) remain valid. Scarpa paid £5,960.88 in rent during the relevant periods, while Tir paid £6,588.45.
Issues
- The tribunal considered whether the two separate licensing schemes by Oxford City Council constituted two distinct offences under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004. Applicants argued for a single offence with a non-continuous limitation period, while the respondent claimed two separate offences, rendering claims for rent paid during the first period (2017-2021) time-barred under section 41(2)(b) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, finding the first period's claims out of time.
- The tribunal evaluated its authority to strike out part of the application under Rule 9(2)(a) (lack of jurisdiction) and/or 9(3)(e) (no reasonable prospect of success). The decision was based on the first period's claims being out of time, as the 12-month limitation period under section 41(2)(b) of the 2016 Act had expired. The tribunal concluded that striking out the first period's claims was appropriate.
Holdings
The tribunal struck out the parts of both applications relating to rent paid during the first period (before 25 January 2021) under Rule 9(2)(a) and/or (3)(e) of the 2013 Rules. The decision was based on the respondent committing two separate offences under Oxford City Council's additional licensing schemes, which rendered claims for the first period out of time under section 41(2)(b) of the 2016 Act.
Remedies
The tribunal struck out the part of the application relating to rent paid before 25 January 2021 under Rule 9(2)(a) and/or (3)(e) of the 2013 Rules.
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied section 41(2)(b) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which limits rent repayment orders to offences committed within 12 months prior to the application. It also relied on Rule 9 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013 to strike out claims lacking jurisdiction or reasonable prospects of success.
Precedent Name
Irving v Metcalfe & others
Cited Statute
- Housing and Planning Act 2016
- Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013
- Housing Act 2004
Judge Name
Judge Wayte
Passage Text
- The tribunal's power to strike out an application is set out in Rule 9 of the 2013 Rules. Of particular relevance in this case are the following: Rule 9(2)(a) The tribunal must strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or case or that part of them; and Rule 9(3)(e) The Tribunal may strike out the whole or part of the proceedings or case if the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the applicant's proceedings or case, or part of it, succeeding.
- I agree with the respondent that the two separate designations by Oxford City Council, with a significant gap between the two while the new scheme was consulted on and came into force, gave rise to two separate offences in this case. Those circumstances distinguish the case from Irving, which suggested the possibility of a discontinuous 12-month period under s.44 when occupancy may have dropped below the licensing threshold for 'a couple of weeks' [26] and is in any event is not a clear authority for the argument made on behalf of the applicants.
- In the circumstances, both applications are too late in respect of rent paid during the first period as it expired more than 12 months before the applications were made to the tribunal. In the circumstances, that part of the applications that relates to rent paid during the first period is struck out under rule 9(2)(a) and/or 9(3)(e).