Daisy Ojukwu v Chukwunyere Peter Onuoha
[2024] UKUT 313 (LC)
Taqeer Shah & Anor v Linda McLaughlin & Ors
18 March 2024
[2024] UKUT 69 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord was ordered to repay rent because his property was illegally overcrowded. He appealed, arguing he didn't know and was tricked by his agent. The court disagreed, saying there was enough evidence to show he knew or should have known, and the amount of repaid rent was fair.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Taqeer Shah (appellant 1) and TSMB Ltd (appellant 2) appealed a First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decision ordering rent repayment of £21,000 to six respondents.
- •The FTT found the property was an unlicensed HMO, and Mr. Shah committed an offence under section 72(1), Housing Act 2004.
- •A rent repayment order under section 40, Housing and Planning Act 2016, was issued (£3,500 per tenant).
- •The appeal challenged the FTT's findings on landlord identity, the 'reasonable excuse' defence, and the quantum of the award.
- •The FTT found Mr. Shah, not TSMB Ltd, was the landlord, based on the tenancy agreement signed by the tenants, despite rent later being paid to TSMB Ltd.
- •The FTT rejected Mr. Shah's claim that he believed the property was occupied by a single household and was misled by his letting agent.
- •The FTT awarded 70% of the total rent paid (£21,000 out of £30,000).
Legal Principles
Appellate courts/tribunals should only interfere with findings of fact from a first instance court/tribunal if they are 'plainly wrong'.
Cook v Thomas [2010] EWCA Civ 227, Clarke v Edinburgh and District Tramways Co Ltd 1919 SC (HL) 35, The Ikarian Reefer [1995] Lloyd’s Rep 455, Assicurazioni Generali Spa v The Arab Insurance Group [2003] 1 WLR 577, Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41
A decision is 'plainly wrong' if no reasonable judge could have reached it.
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41
Four-step approach for determining the quantum of a rent repayment order (Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC)).
Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) found the FTT's findings were not 'plainly wrong'. The FTT's acceptance of the tenants' evidence regarding landlord identity was supported by sufficient evidence, despite inconsistencies and the lack of some evidence from the appellants.
Ground 2 (reasonable excuse) dismissed.
The FTT's rejection of Mr. Shah's claim of being deceived by his letting agents was justified due to a lack of supporting evidence.
Ground 3 (quantum of the order) dismissed.
The FTT's award of 70% of the rent was within the range of typical awards for such offences, and Mr. Hart couldn't show specific errors in the assessment.