Paul Fashade v Mailna Albustin & Ors
[2023] UKUT 40 (LC)
Renee Daff v Aris Gyalui & Anor
15 June 2023
[2023] UKUT 134 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord was ordered to pay back a lot of money to her tenants for not having the right license for her flat. A higher court decided the landlord was very sick and poor, so she only had to pay back a small amount instead.
Key Facts
- •Ms. Daff, a landlord, was ordered by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) to repay £22,230 to her former tenants due to operating an unlicensed flat in a selective licensing area.
- •Ms. Daff appealed, arguing the FTT failed to consider her financial circumstances and misinterpreted an exemption from the licensing scheme.
- •The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) allowed the appeal, finding the FTT erred by not considering Ms. Daff's financial circumstances.
- •The Upper Tribunal redetermined the rent repayment order to £2,000, considering Ms. Daff's poor health, limited income, and the less serious nature of the offense.
Legal Principles
When determining the amount of a rent repayment order under section 44 of the 2016 Act, the tribunal must take into account the landlord's financial circumstances.
Section 44(4)(b), Housing and Planning Act 2016
A tribunal has a responsibility to elicit necessary information to make a fair decision, particularly when a party lacks professional representation.
Regent Management Limited v Jones [2012] UKUT 369 (LC)
The seriousness of the offense, the landlord's conduct, and whether the landlord has been previously convicted are relevant factors in determining the amount of a rent repayment order.
Section 44(4), Housing and Planning Act 2016
Rent repayment orders are not compensatory but a tool to punish and deter future offences; disproportionate penalties should be avoided.
Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The FTT failed to consider Ms. Daff's financial circumstances, a statutory requirement.
Rent repayment order reduced to £2,000.
The Upper Tribunal considered Ms. Daff's financial circumstances, health issues, and the less serious nature of the offense, applying a holistic approach to determine a fair penalty.