Key Facts
- •LDC (Ferry Lane) GP3 Ltd (appellant) appealed a rent repayment order under section 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
- •The order was made because the appellant controlled unlicensed HMOs (Houses in Multiple Occupation).
- •The HMOs were flats in a purpose-built student accommodation block.
- •The appellant argued a reasonable excuse due to the local authority's failure to consult before designating the area for additional licensing.
- •The respondents (students) cross-appealed, seeking a higher rent repayment amount.
- •The appellant is a major provider of student accommodation and subscribes to an approved code of practice.
Legal Principles
A landlord's ignorance of licensing requirements is generally not a reasonable excuse for non-compliance, particularly for large-scale providers.
IR Management Ltd v Salford City Council [2020] UKUT 81 (LC)
The burden of proving a reasonable excuse lies on the party asserting it.
IR Management Ltd v Salford City Council [2020] UKUT 81 (LC)
Section 44 of the 2016 Act does not require maximum rent repayment; the amount must relate to rent paid, potentially as a proportion or after deductions.
Williams v Parmar [2021] UKUT 244 (LC)
When determining rent repayment amounts, tribunals can consider factors beyond those explicitly listed in section 44(4), including the landlord's payment of utilities consumed by the tenant.
Williams v Parmar [2021] UKUT 244 (LC)
Deduction of utility costs from rent is permissible when determining rent repayment order amounts, as the landlord does not benefit directly from these costs.
Parker v Waller [2012] UKUT 301 (LC), Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC)
Rent repayment orders primarily aim to deter and punish landlords, not compensate tenants for specific losses.
Kowalek v Hassanein Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1041
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the additional licensing scheme. The local authority's alleged failures in consultation did not excuse the appellant's lack of proactive investigation.
Cross-appeal partially dismissed.
The FTT's deduction of utility costs from the rent was upheld as legally permissible. The FTT's assessment of the rent repayment amount, considering various factors, was deemed reasonable and within its discretion.