Paul Fashade v Mailna Albustin & Ors
[2023] UKUT 40 (LC)
Fah Hor Chong v Eleonora Severgnini & Ors
8 November 2024
[2024] UKUT 348 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord was ordered to repay rent because his house was illegally rented out without a license. He said he tried to get a license but the council messed up. A higher court agreed the first court didn't fairly consider his side of the story, so they sent the case back for a new trial.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Chong, landlord of 12 Arden Crescent, appealed a rent repayment order from the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •The property was an HMO requiring a license under the London Borough of Tower Hamlets' additional licensing scheme.
- •Mr. Chong claimed a reasonable excuse for not having a license, stating he attempted to apply but encountered issues with the council's online portal and communication with a council officer.
- •The FTT rejected Mr. Chong's reasonable excuse defence, finding he did not submit a license application until 14/01/2023.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) found the FTT failed to properly consider Mr. Chong's evidence and make necessary findings of fact regarding his interactions with the council.
Legal Principles
Defence of reasonable excuse for operating an unlicensed HMO under section 72(4) and (5) of the Housing Act 2004.
Housing Act 2004
Rent Repayment Order (RRO) provisions under section 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
Housing and Planning Act 2016
Outcomes
The UT allowed Mr. Chong's appeal.
The FTT failed to adequately consider the substance of Mr. Chong's evidence regarding his reasonable excuse and failed to make necessary findings of fact. The FTT's decision was deemed inadequate and illogical.
The case was remitted to the FTT for redetermination by a different panel.
To ensure a fair and proper consideration of Mr. Chong's defence and the relevant evidence.