Flat 22, 46 Britannia Street London WC1X 9JH ((Housing) Act 2004 and Housing and Planning Act 2016 - Rent repayment orders) -[2020] UKFTT LON_00AG_HMF_2019_0093- (3 April 2020)

BAILII

Automated Summary

Key Facts

The tribunal ruled that Flat 22, 46 Britannia Street, London WC1X 9JH, was an unlicensed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) from August 2018 to December 2019. The property, owned by Mrs. Lutfa Bibi (first respondent) and managed by Prime Land Property Limited (second respondent), was let to 7 occupants across 6 rooms. The second respondent conceded the unlicensed HMO offense, while the first respondent claimed unawareness of licensing requirements. The tribunal determined Prime Land Property Limited was the landlord under the license agreement and ordered a rent repayment of £7,600. The decision was based on the property's failure to obtain an HMO license, with enforcement action taken by the London Borough of Camden. The hearing occurred on 21 February 2020, and the decision was issued on 03 April 2020.

Issues

  • The tribunal resolved whether the managing agent (Prime Land Property Limited) or the freeholder (Mrs Lutfa Bibi) was the landlord for the repayment order. It also calculated the repayment amount based on the managing agent’s profit and statutory deductions.
  • The tribunal examined if the unlicensed HMO management took place during the 12 months preceding the application. The evidence showed the property was unlicensed from August 2018 to December 2019, within the required timeframe.
  • The tribunal assessed whether the unlicensed HMO offence involved a property that was leased to the tenants. The evidence confirmed the premises were occupied by multiple tenants under a licensing agreement.
  • The tribunal determined if the landlord had committed an offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004, which prohibits managing an HMO without a licence. The Applicants alleged the premises were operated as an unlicensed HMO, and the second respondent conceded this in part.

Holdings

  • The Tribunal issued a rent repayment order totaling £7,600, calculated by deducting £60 per month for gas and electricity from each tenant's rent and considering the second respondent's profit of £6,900 over three years. The order was not made against the first respondent due to the management agreement obligations and the second respondent's control of the property.
  • The Tribunal determined that the premises were an unlicensed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) under Section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004, as they were required to be licensed but were not. This was conceded by the second respondent, and the Tribunal accepted evidence confirming the unlicensed status from August 2018 onwards.
  • The Tribunal ruled that the second respondent, Prime Land Property Limited, was the landlord for the purpose of the rent repayment order. This was based on their role as named landlord in the license agreements, control over the property, and professional responsibility to ensure licensing compliance, despite the first respondent being the freeholder.

Remedies

  • The Tribunal makes a rent repayment order in the total sum of £7600.00, as per the Housing Act 2004 and Section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
  • The Tribunal orders the Respondent to reimburse the Applicants' hearing fees pursuant to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

Monetary Damages

7600.00

Legal Principles

  • The Tribunal was required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord committed the offence of managing an unlicensed HMO. This standard was applied to the evidence provided by the Applicants and the admission by the second respondent.
  • The Tribunal applied sections 72 and 73 of the Housing Act 2004, which govern offences related to unlicensed HMOs and the conditions for issuing rent repayment orders. Specifically, it was determined that the premises were an unlicensed HMO, and the Tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord committed the offence, necessitating a rent repayment order.

Precedent Name

  • Fallon and Wilson and others
  • Parker and Waller

Cited Statute

  • Housing and Planning Act 2016
  • Housing Act 2004

Judge Name

  • Judge Daley
  • Mr M Cairns MCIEH

Passage Text

  • The Tribunal is satisfied that the licences were granted by Prime Property Limited who in the licence agreement was named as the Landlord. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that Prime Property Limited had control of the premises for the purpose of this offence and that any award ought to be made against Prime Property Limited rather than the first respondent.
  • The Tribunal recognises that this sum although not representing the full amount of the rent, does provide compensation for the tenants in line with the proportion of rent which was directly paid to the second respondent.
  • The Tribunal makes an order for a rent repayment order in the total sum of £7600.00.