2 Oakhill Road, London SW16 5RG ((Housing) Act 2004 and Housing and Planning Act 2016 - Rent repayment orders) -[2019] UKFTT RP_LON_00AH_HMB_2019_0002- (14 October 2019)

Key Facts

Issues

• The applicant claimed harassment through seven months of extensive building works and correspondence from the respondent. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to substantiate these claims, noting the limited evidence available did not meet the threshold for harassment under sections 1(3) or (3A) of the 1977 Act.
• The tribunal determined whether the respondent's eviction of the applicant by changing the lock on 22 February 2019 without serving a proper written notice to quit constituted an offence under sections 1(2) and (3) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The applicant had exclusive possession of her room and paid rent, establishing her as a residential occupier. The tribunal concluded no valid notice was served, confirming the eviction was unlawful.

Holdings

• The respondent was ordered to refund the applicant's tribunal fees of £300 (£100 application and £200 hearing) under Rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Rules, as the applicant was not at fault in the proceedings.
• A rent repayment order of £2281.50 was issued, calculated as 75% of the total rent (£3842) for the 12-month period ending with the eviction, minus outgoings of £800 (gas, electric, insurance, etc.), following guidance from Parker v Waller [2012] UKUT 301 (LC).
• The Tribunal concluded that the respondent unlawfully evicted the applicant by changing the locks on 22 February 2019 without serving a proper written notice to quit, which must include a four-week period expiring on a rent day and prescribed statutory information.
• The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to substantiate the applicant's harassment claim, despite allegations of seven months of building works and correspondence from the respondent.
• The Tribunal determined that the applicant was a residential occupier under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, citing the case of Street v Mountford [1985] UKHL 4. She had exclusive possession and paid rent, fulfilling the criteria for a tenant.

Remedies

• The tribunal ordered the respondent (Ms Althea Johnson) to refund the applicant's £300 in fees (£100 application fee and £200 hearing fee) under Rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Rules, as the respondent committed an unlawful eviction offence.
• The tribunal ordered a rent repayment of £2281.50 to the applicant (Ms Radka Kehayova) for unlawful eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. This amount represents 75% of the claimed rent (£3842) after deducting estimated outgoings (£800) for the 12-month period ending February 2019.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The Tribunal must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord committed an offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 when determining a rent repayment order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
• The Tribunal applied a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard to assess whether the respondent unlawfully evicted the applicant, referencing the requirements of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Precedent Name

• Fallon v Wilson and Others
• Street v Mountford
• Parker v Waller and others

Cited Statute

• Housing and Planning Act 2016
• Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The tribunal determines that there be an order for the refund of the application fee and also the hearing fee in the combined sum of £300 pursuant to Rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Rules payable by the respondent to the applicant.
• The Tribunal could not find in any of the papers before it any such proper lawful notice to quit and therefore concluded that none had been served and that by changing the locks and excluding the tenant from her room she had indeed been unlawfully evicted contrary to the provisions of the 1977 Act.
• After deducting the outgoings from the gross amount of the claim at 75% the sum to be determined is £2281.50.