Fah Hor Chong v Eleonora Severgnini & Ors
[2024] UKUT 348 (LC)
Daisy Ojukwu v Chukwunyere Peter Onuoha
4 October 2024
[2024] UKUT 313 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord was ordered to repay rent for running an unlicensed house. A higher court ruled the first court made mistakes by not properly considering the landlord's excuses (misleading council website) and financial problems. The case will be heard again.
Key Facts
- •Mrs Daisy Ojukwu (appellant) appealed a rent repayment order (RRO) made against her by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •The respondent, Mr Peter Onuoha, her tenant, claimed 12 months' rent (£8,640) because the property was an unlicensed HMO.
- •The property, a three-bedroom maisonette, was occupied by two to four tenants in two households.
- •The local housing authority (Newham Council) had designated the area as subject to additional licensing, requiring a license for HMOs occupied by three or more persons in two or more households.
- •The appellant argued that the council's website provided incorrect information about licensing requirements, leading to her reasonable excuse for not having a license.
- •The FTT found the appellant guilty and ordered her to repay 75% (£6,480) of the claimed rent.
- •The FTT did not consider the appellant's financial circumstances or deduct utility payments from the RRO.
Legal Principles
Definition of HMO under the Housing Act 2004, Section 254.
Housing Act 2004
Licensing requirements for HMOs under the Housing Act 2004, Section 55 and 56 and the Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation Regulations 2018.
Housing Act 2004, sections 55, 56, and Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation Regulations 2018
Offence for managing an unlicensed HMO under the Housing Act 2004, Section 72, and the defence of reasonable excuse.
Housing Act 2004, Section 72
Factors for determining the amount of a rent repayment order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, Section 44(4).
Housing and Planning Act 2016, Section 44(4)
Consideration of landlord's financial circumstances in RRO decisions, as per Daff v Gyalui [2023] UKUT 134.
Daff v Gyalui [2023] UKUT 134
Deduction of utility payments from RROs as per Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC).
Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC)
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the FTT's decision.
The FTT failed to properly address the appellant's potential defence of reasonable excuse based on misleading information on the council's website and did not adequately consider mitigating factors, including the appellant's financial circumstances and the invalid notices to quit.
The case was remitted to the FTT for re-hearing by a different panel.
The UT could not substitute its own decision due to the FTT's failure to make key findings of fact and the absence of a complete record of the evidence.