Jenny Yi v Nick Hobbs & Anor
[2024] UKUT 155 (LC)
John Anthony Newell v Joe Abbott & Anor
19 June 2024
[2024] UKUT 181 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord didn't know about a rule requiring a license for his rented flat. The court said he should have known, but the amount of money he had to pay back to his tenants was too high. The court looked at similar cases and reduced the amount he owed, focusing on the main issue – the missing license – rather than minor problems.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Newell, a solicitor, managed an unlicensed flat in London Borough of Tower Hamlets, subject to a selective licensing scheme since 2016.
- •He was unaware of the scheme due to an outdated address and lack of proactive information seeking.
- •Two tenants, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Okrojek, applied for rent repayment orders (RROs).
- •The FTT ordered Mr. Newell to repay each tenant £5,760 (80% of 12 months' rent).
- •Mr. Newell appealed, arguing lack of reasonable excuse and incorrect RRO calculation.
Legal Principles
Reasonable excuse defence under s.95(4)(a), Housing Act 2004; Objective reasonableness considering landlord's circumstances (Marigold v Wells).
Marigold v Wells [2023] UKUT 33 (LC)
RRO amount limited to rent paid during the 12-month period of the offence and in respect of that period (Kowalek v Hassanien Ltd).
Kowalek v Hassanien Ltd [2021] UKUT 143 (LC) and [2022] EWCA Civ 1041
Determining RRO amount, consider offence seriousness relative to other housing offences, landlord and tenant conduct, landlord's financial circumstances (s.44(4), 2016 Act). Licensing offences are generally less serious than others.
Ficcara v James [2021] UKUT 38 (LC); Williams v Parmar [2021] UKUT 244 (LC); Hallett v Parker [2022] UKUT 165 (LC); Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC); Daff v Gyalui [2023] UKUT 134 (LC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
FTT erred in assessing reasonable excuse and RRO quantum. While unawareness of the licensing scheme wasn't a reasonable excuse given Mr. Newell's professional background and minimal efforts to inform himself, the FTT's approach to RRO calculation was flawed. It failed to properly consider the relative seriousness of the licensing offence compared to other housing offences and was overly critical of Mr Newell’s conduct.
RRO reduced to £4,320 per tenant (60% of 12 months' rent).
Considering Mr. Newell's inadvertence, good condition of the property, and the long duration of the offence, 60% was deemed appropriate.