John Anthony Newell v Joe Abbott & Anor
[2024] UKUT 181 (LC)
Jenny Yi v Nick Hobbs & Anor
3 June 2024
[2024] UKUT 155 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord was ordered to repay rent to tenants because her house was unlicensed. The court corrected mistakes in the amount she had to pay, and decided how to handle rent that one tenant owed after the period being considered. The final amount the landlord has to pay was reduced.
Key Facts
- •Ms Yi appealed FTT rent repayment orders for rent arrears from two tenants, Mr Hobbs and Mr Alaike.
- •The FTT found Ms Yi guilty of managing an unlicensed HMO.
- •The appeal regarding Mr Hobbs concerned the FTT's incorrect treatment of rent arrears that occurred outside the relevant period.
- •The appeal regarding Mr Alaike concerned arithmetical errors in the FTT's calculations.
- •The property was a five-bedroom house let to individuals sharing a kitchen; a license was required under an additional licensing scheme.
- •Ms Yi's husband, living in China, was the registered proprietor; Ms Yi managed the property and received rent.
Legal Principles
Rent Repayment Orders (RROs) under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, section 40, for managing an unlicensed HMO.
Housing and Planning Act 2016, section 40
Section 43(2) of the 2016 Act: RRO amount must relate to rent paid within 12 months of the offence.
Housing and Planning Act 2016, section 43(2)
Section 43(4) of the 2016 Act: Tribunal must consider landlord's and tenant's conduct, landlord's financial circumstances, and prior convictions.
Housing and Planning Act 2016, section 43(4)
FTT has discretion in considering tenant's conduct, including rent arrears outside the RRO period (Kowalek v Hossanein Ltd).
Kowalek v Hossanein Ltd [2021] UKUT 143 (LC)
The FTT's decision must be adequately explained (Acheampong v Roman).
Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed for both Mr Hobbs and Mr Alaike.
The FTT's calculation for Mr Hobbs was flawed due to arithmetical errors and an incorrect treatment of rent arrears. The FTT's calculation for Mr Alaike contained arithmetical errors. The Upper Tribunal corrected these errors and recalculated the amounts payable.
Amount payable to Mr Hobbs reduced to £1,608.92.
The Upper Tribunal corrected the arithmetical errors and applied the rent arrears against the total due.
Amount payable to Mr Alaike reduced to £3,420.06.
The Upper Tribunal corrected the arithmetical errors in the FTT’s calculation.