8 Hibernia Road, Hounslow, TW3 3RY - Ref ((Housing) Act 2004 and Housing and Planning Act 2016 - Rent repayment orders) -[2020] UKFTT LON_00AT_HMF_2019_0097- (15 December 2020)

Key Facts

Issues

• The Tribunal had to calculate the amount of the rent repayment order (RRO) against Mr Bhangra. This included establishing the period of the offence (16 December 2018 to 31 August 2019), the total rent paid (£7,200), and applying a 10% reduction for utility costs. The final RRO amount was set at £5,715, with an additional £100 for tribunal fees reimbursement.
• The Tribunal was required to determine whether either respondent committed an offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 by managing or controlling an unlicensed HMO at 8 Hibernia Road. This involved assessing the legal definitions of 'person having control' and 'person managing' under section 263 of the 2004 Act, as well as whether the Property met the criteria for a prescribed HMO requiring a licence. The Tribunal concluded both Mr Bhangra and Ms Blaszczyk were liable for the offence.

Holdings

• 1. The Tribunal makes a rent repayment order against Inderjit Singh Bhangra in the sum of £5,715.
• 3. The Tribunal determines that Inderjit Singh Bhangra shall also pay the Applicant £100 in respect of the reimbursement of the tribunal fees which he has paid.
• 4. Inderjit Singh Bhangra is to pay the said sums of £5,815 by 12 January 2021.
• 2. The Tribunal does not make a rent repayment order against Marta Paulina Blaszczyk.

Remedies

• The Tribunal has issued a rent repayment order against Inderjit Singh Bhangra for £5,715.
• The Tribunal has ordered Inderjit Singh Bhangra to reimburse the Applicants £100 for tribunal fees.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The Tribunal prioritized substance over form by disregarding the formal tenancy structure and focusing on the actual management and control of the property by Mr Bhangra and Ms Blaszczyk, particularly in determining liability for the unlicensed HMO offence.
• The Tribunal applied the purposive approach to interpret the Housing and Planning Act 2016, emphasizing the legislative intent to deter rogue landlords by holding superior landlords liable for offences even when intermediaries are involved in subletting arrangements.
• The standard of proof applied was criminal beyond reasonable doubt, as mandated by section 43(1) of the 2016 Act, to establish the respondents' offences and justify the rent repayment order.
• The Tribunal determined that it must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both Mr Bhangra and Ms Blaszczyk committed the offence under section 72(1) of the 2004 Act, as required by the statutory framework for rent repayment orders.

Precedent Name

• Goldsbrough v CA Property Management Ltd
• Street v Mountford
• Vadamalayan v Stewart
• Rakusen v Jepson and Others
• London Corporation v Cusack-Smith

Cited Statute

• Housing and Planning Act 2016
• Housing Act 2004

Judge Name

Passage Text

• 47(i) The 'person having control': We are satisfied that both Mr Bhangra and Ms Blaszczyk fall within this definition. Both received the 'rack-rent' of the Property. Mr Bhangra received a rent of £2,600 pm from Ms Blaszczyk. Ms Blaszczyk received full rents from her five sub-tenants.
• 54. The Tribunal note that the rent paid by Mr and Mrs Desai included various costs which were borne by Ms Blaszczyk, namely council tax, water charges, gas, water and electricity... We are therefore satisfied that we should make a reduction of 10% which is our best estimate of the proportion of the rent that is attributable to these utilities.
• 50(i) We are satisfied that Mr Bhangra had the primary responsibility to ensure that the Property was licensed. Had Ms Blaszczyk applied for the licence, it is doubtful whether Hounslow would have considered her to be the most appropriate person to hold the licence.