Flat 3, 503 Babbacombe Road, Torquay, Devon, TQ1 1HL HAV/00HH/HMB/2025/0605
DECISION
[37]We find that no criminal offence pursuant to The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 s.1(2), (3) or (3A) has been proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been committed by the respondent. As a result the application fails and the claim is dismissed.[38]We note that the Applicant admitted he was in receipt of Universal Credit. No details of the payments received were within the hearing bundle. After the hearing the Applicant did send to the Tribunal evidence of the Universal Credit payments made.[39]The relevant law for the offences alleged under the Protection of Eviction Act 1977 (“the 1977 Act”) is set out below: Section 1 Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier. (2)If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or attempts to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises. (3)If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier of any premises— (a)to give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof; or (b)to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof; does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a residence, he shall be guilty of an offence. (3A)Subject to subsection (3B) below, the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if— (a)he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or (b)he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence, and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises[40]It appears to be common ground that prior to the flood on 26 November 2024 relations had been cordial. After this flood both sides agree relations deteriorated leading to the Applicant and his family vacating the Property on or about 8 January 2025. The Applicant vacated having given notice of his intention to the Respondent.[41]We note that Mr Harrity referred to certain events relating to in particular OVO Energy which took place after he vacated. We are satisfied such events cannot amount to providing any offence under the 1977 Act. We accept they may be used as evidence of conduct by the Respondent towards the Applicant however we are not satisfied on the evidence advanced that it can be proved that the Respondent had caused the energy company to pursue the Applicant for a debt which was not his responsibility.[42]We are not satisfied on the evidence before us that the offences have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.[43]Both sides agree there was a flood. We are satisfied that the Respondent acting by Kai Salaam and latterly Omar Salaam took steps to remedy the same. The flood of itself would have been traumatic for the Applicant and his family. We accept that Kai Salaam was rude. Mr Omar Salaam accepted this and apologised. Such rudeness is not of itself in our judgment harassment such as to amount to an offence of harassment under the 1977 Act. In any event the actions of Mr Omar Salaam in taking over conduct of matters from his son demonstrate that even if rude and unnecessary this was not in our judgment conduct which could be said to be harassment.[44]Further the Applicant relies upon a meeting on 29 November 2024. We have listened to the recording. We are satisfied that it was Mr Harrity who had an aggressive demeanour at that meeting in our judgment. Mr Salaam drew this to his attention at the meeting. It was in our judgment plain the meeting had been jointly agreed to. Having taken all the evidence we had before us of the meeting including the transcript, the recording and the oral evidence of each party we are not satisfied that any of the actions of Mr Omar Salaam at that meeting amounted to harassment.[45]It is suggested that Mr Bond may have crossed the threshold of the Property. Whilst we did not hear from Mr Bond on the evidence before us we were not satisfied that Mr Bond did enter the Property. Even if we were wrong on the evidence given to us we would not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this amounted to a breach of the 1977 Act.[46]As to the question of unlawful eviction we find that Mr Harrity gave voluntary notice and vacated the Property in accordance with the same. The service of a section 21 notice and the various notices of breach do not in our judgment amount to unlawful eviction. A prudent landlord might in our judgment given notice of all alleged breaches prior to bring possession proceedings. The service of a section 21 Notice was a legitimate means at that time for the Respondent to seek possession. Mr Harrity could have remained, however on his own evidence he chose to move and made arrangements for new accommodation.[47]We have stood back and looked at the totality of the evidence to consider whether as a course of conduct these amount to a breach of the 1977 Act.[48]Mr Salaam candidly admitted mistakes, including the behaviour of his son. He apologised for this and we find his apology was genuine. It was plain he felt relations had broken down and did not look to apportion blame between his son and Mr Harrity.[49]Much was made of the fact that a floor had not been tiled or carpeted by 7 January 2025. What the photo to which the witnesses refer show is a recently treated floor, whether concrete or latex is perhaps irrelevant. Works had clearly been undertaken and given all parties agreed flooding was the cause of the need for works using our expertise we would expect the landlord to await until all was fully dry before covering the new screed. It is clear from the photograph the screeding was undertaken to a good standard.[50]Overall we find that Messrs Salaam acted to remedy the damage caused by the flood. It is not suggested that the respondent deliberately caused the flood and in our judgment the Respondent acted properly and reasonably in remedying the same. We accept the Applicant may have been frustrated by these events but this is not the same as a breach of the 1977 Act.[51]Standing back we are satisfied that no offence under the 1977 Act has been proved to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence before us. If no offence has been committed then an application for a rent repayment order fails and must be dismissed. RIGHTS OF APPEAL[1]A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to rpsouthern@justice.gov.uk[2]The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.[3]If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed. Explanation of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to make a Rent Repayment Order[1]The issues for the Tribunal to consider include: Whether the Tribunal is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the landlord has committed one or more of the following offences: Act Section General description of offence 1 Criminal Law Act 1977 s.6(1) violence for securing entry 2 Protection from Eviction Act 1977 s.1(2), (3) or (3A) unlawful eviction or harassment of occupiers 3 Housing Act 2004 s.30(1) failure to comply with improvement notice 4 Housing Act 2004 s.32(1) failure to comply with prohibition order etc. 5 Housing Act 2004 s.72(1) control or management of unlicensed HMO 6 Housing Act 2004 s.95(1) control or management of unlicensed house 7 Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.21 breach of banning order Or has a financial penalty been imposed in respect of the offence?(i) What was the date of the offence/financial penalty?(ii) Was the offence committed in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application made?(iii) What is the applicable twelve-month period?(iv) What is the maximum amount that can be ordered under section 44(3) of the Act?(v) Should the tribunal reduce the maximum amount it could order, in particular because of: (a) The conduct of the landlord? (b) The conduct of the tenant? (c) The financial circumstances of the landlord? (d) Whether the landlord has been convicted of an offence listed above at any time? (e) Any other factors?[2]The parties are referred to The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 for guidance on how the application will be dealt with. Important Note: Tribunal cases and criminal proceedings If an allegation is being made that a person has committed a criminal offence, that person should understand that any admission or finding by the Tribunal may be used in a subsequent prosecution. For this reason, he or she may wish to seek legal advice before making any comment within these proceedings.