160C Muswell Hill Road, N10 3NG LON/00AP/HMF/2021/0102
DECISION
[28]The tribunal considered that the Applicants gave honest evidence of their occupation of the premises. In contrast the tribunal were not impressed by Mr Patel’s evidence which was inconsistent and unreliable. He was happy to allege that others were lying and attribute blame to the local authority when this was not justified. He is an experienced manager of properties. He will have been aware of the requirements in relation to licensing. In the Tribunal's view he was aware of the occupation of the premises by Mr Chauhan at the relevant time. In the Tribunal's view he was also aware of the occupation of Miss Andre and was never led to believe that she was the spouse of Mr Leake. In any event this was a red herring because the premises would still have been an HMO had the two people been in a relationship. The fact that Mr Patel had sought to allege that they were spouses when there was no supporting evidence of this merely reinforces the Tribunal's view that the Respondent was seeking means of avoiding liability when he knew he should have had the premises licensed. On the balance of probabilities the main factual issue must be decided in the Applicants’ favour. They were in occupation of an unlicensed's HMO. The Respondent knew about their occupation and they are prima facie entitled to a rent repayment order.[29]The Applicants were seeking an RRO of £23078 having deducted the Third Applicant’s Universal Credit. This was made up of the following: £23,880 for the 12 month period between August 2019 to September 2020 (6 months’ rent at £1,950 per month and 6 months’ rent at £2,030 per month). Deductions of Universal Credit are made at a total of £802 equating to £23078.[30]In light of the tribunal's findings it is not considered that any deduction from the award claimed is appropriate in this case. As indicated the Respondent is an experienced manager of properties who should have been aware of their responsibility to license the premises. The Tribunal were not impressed by the fact that Mr Patel had sought all means to avoid liability including making spurious allegations about the Applicants. In addition there was no evidence before the Tribunal as to the Respondent’s financial circumstances. On its face the premises is in a desirable area and will be worth a considerable amount of money. On the basis of this alone there is no reason to doubt that the Respondent’s financial circumstances would cause the tribunal to reach any other decision in relation to the rent repayment order than allowing the award of £23,078 pounds. Summary[31]The respondent is required to pay the sum of £23078 to the Applicants within 14 days. ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions[1]A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional tribunal office which has been dealing with the case.[2]The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional tribunal office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.[3]If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.[4]The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers[5]Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.