Jenny Yi v Nick Hobbs & Anor
[2024] UKUT 155 (LC)
Clara Feige Vila Moreira & Ors v Nicholas and Varuni Morrison
21 September 2023
[2023] UKUT 233 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Three tenants got money back from their landlord because he broke the law. They wanted more money back, but the judge said no because the law only lets them get back what they personally paid, even though they were all responsible for the whole rent together.
Key Facts
- •Three of five tenants (appellants) in a house in multiple occupation (HMO) applied for a rent repayment order (RRO) against the landlords (respondents) due to the HMO's unlicensed status.
- •The FTT awarded each applicant 70% of the rent they personally paid (1/5 of the total rent).
- •The appellants appealed, arguing they should receive 70% of the total rent based on joint and several liability for the entire rent.
- •The rent was £2,817 per month, totaling £26,001 for the relevant period.
Legal Principles
Maximum amount repayable under a rent repayment order is capped by the rent actually paid by the tenant, not the rent they were liable for.
Housing and Planning Act 2016, Section 44(3)
A rent repayment order is a repayment of what a tenant has actually paid, not what they were liable to pay.
Kowalek and another v Hassanein Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1041
Joint and several liability for rent does not automatically entitle tenants to an RRO calculated on the total rent when only a portion was paid by each individual applicant.
Sturgiss and another v Boddy [2021] EW Misc 10 (CC) (distinguished)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s decision. The relevant legislation focuses on rent 'paid' by the individual tenant, not liability to pay. Calculating the RRO based on the total rent would be unfair to the landlord and inconsistent with the statutory scheme.