Judge TuejeMr S Wheeler MCIEH, CEnvHJustice for Tenants for the ApplicantIn person Application for a rent repayment order for the RespondentVenue 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LRDate 28 October 2025Hearing 2025-07-25Property: 52 Parkfield Road, Feltham, TW13 7LG (1) Anand Korva (2) Ramya Smruthi Pallati (3) Mithun EndrakantiType of application: by the tenants: s40, 41, 43 and 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 Judge Tueje
DECISION
Corrected on 18th November 2025 The Tribunal exercised its powers under Rule 50 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 to correct paragraph (4) of its decision dated 28 October 2025 so that it accurately reflects paragraph 23 of the Applicants’ Statement of Reasons. The substantive decision is unchanged. The correction is typed in red text, and deleted text has been struck through. Decisions of the Tribunal[1]The Tribunal find that the Respondent committed an offence under section 72(1) without reasonable excuse.[2]The Tribunal makes a rent repayment order against the Respondent for the global sum of £4,547.05, which is to be paid to the Applicants within 28 days of the date this Decision is sent to the parties.[3]The above sum represents a rent repayment order of 25% of the rent paid by each Applicant during the period of the award, and it represents the following amounts:(i)£1,068.41 for the period from 17th April 2023 to 1st November 2023 to Anand Korva(ii)£1,068.41 for the period from 17th April 2023 to 1st November 2023 to Ramya Smruthi Pallati;(iii)£446.38 for the period from 17th April 2023 to 1st November 2023 to Mithun Endrakanti;(iv)£446.38 for the period from 17th April 2023 to 1st November 2023 to Dhanush Kumar Pathola;(v)£446.38 for the period from 17th April 2023 to 1st November 2023 to Manish Kumar Endla; and(vi)£1,071.11 for the period from 17th April 2023 to 1st November 2023 to Jeno Antalicz.[4]The Tribunal also determines that within 28 days of the date this decision is sent to the parties the Respondent shall pay to the Applicants £660£330 as reimbursement of the Tribunal’s fees pursuant to rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.[5]The reasons for the Tribunal’s decision are set out below. The Application[1]The Application for a rent repayment order is dated 20th October 2024, and is made under section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.[2]The Applicants are the former tenants of 52 Parkfield Road, Feltham, TW13 7LG (“the Property”).[3]The Property was originally built as a single storey dwelling. It was extended upwards by building a loft extension that contained a bedroom and an en-suite shower room. There was also a ground floor extension built to the rear and side of the Property. The ground floor extension is an annex comprising a studio living/sleeping area, a kitchen and bathroom. At the time the Property was rented to the Applicants, the main house comprised a living room, kitchen, bathroom and three bedrooms on the ground floor, and a bedroom and ensuite in the first floor loft extension. The main house and the annex each have separate entrances, but they both share a single boiler and gas and electricity meters.[4]The Application is made against the Respondent who is the freehold owner of the Property.[5]The London Borough of Hounslow granted an HMO licence in respect of the Property permitting occupation by a maximum of 3 households and 5 persons. That licence was issued on 9th June 2020 and expired on 16th April 2023. Hounslow claim the Respondent did not renew the licence in April 2023 despite it sending her reminders. The Hearing[6]By an order dated 12th February 2025 the Tribunal gave directions, subsequently listed for a final hearing on 25th July 2025. This is the determination following that final hearing. We acknowledge the time that has elapsed since the final hearing, and we apologise for the delay in issuing this determination. We would like to thank the parties for their patience.[7]At the final hearing the Tribunal was provided with the following documentation:7.1 The Applicants’ 323-page bundle for use at the hearing;7.2 The Applicants’ 7-page Reply to the Respondent’s statement of case;7.3 The Applicants’ 9-page skeleton argument dated 22nd July 2025; and7.4 The Respondent’s 103-page bundle.[8]No party requested an inspection of the Property by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal did not consider one was necessary or proportionate.[9]There was a delayed start to the final hearing due to the late arrival of the interpreter who the Tribunal had booked for the Respondent. However, on the interpreter’s arrival the hearing proceeded.[10]The Applicants all attended the final hearing, and were represented by Justice for Tenants. The Respondent was not legally represented. Her husband had accompanied her, but the Respondent clarified that he was not representing her.[11]During the early stages of the hearing, the Respondent’s husband sought to counsel her. We explained that was appropriate except while she was giving evidence. Despite this guidance, the Respondent’s husband repeatedly sought to counsel her at inappropriate times, he was reminded that was not permitted, but continued to do so. Eventually, the Tribunal warned him that if he continued to do so he would be asked to leave the hearing room. He did not heed the warning so he was asked to leave. While leaving the hearing room, he walked past the Applicants, we observed what seemed to be an exchange between the Respondent’s husband and the Applicants, but we have no knowledge as to who initiated this nor what was said. The Background The Applicants’ Case[12]The Applicants’ tenancy agreement names the Respondent as the landlord, although it is common ground that Laxman Kota, a restaurateur by occupation, dealt with some day to day matters relating to the Property.[13]The London Borough of Hounslow granted an HMO licence in respect of the Property permitting a maximum of 3 households and 5 persons. That licence was issued on 9th June 2020. The Respondent applied to increase the number of permitted occupants under the licence from 5 to 7, but that application was refused. Therefore, the Respondent held an HMO licence permitting a maximum of 3 households and 5 persons until it expired on 16th April 2023.[14]In their application form the Applicants are claiming a rent repayment order for the period from the expiry of the HMO licence, namely from 17th April 2023 to 1st November 2023, being the day before she applied for a further HMO licence. The amounts the Applicants claimed for this period is as follows:14.1 Anand Korva and Ramya Smruthi Pallati jointly claim £9,591.24;14.2 Mithun Endrakanti claims £2,307.48;14.3 Dhanush Kumar Pathola claims £2,307.48;14.4 Manish Kumar Endla claims £2,307.48; and14.5 Jeno Antalicz claims £5,681.40.[15]The Respondent applied for a mandatory HMO licence on 2nd November 2023.[16]The periods of the Applicants’ occupation of the Property is set out below.[17]Jeno Antalicz occupied the studio annex at the Property from 25th October 2021. At that time the Respondent lived in the main house which she shared with three lodgers, but she and the lodgers later moved out. Mr Antalicz paid a deposit of £850 at the start of his tenancy. The Respondent did not initially provide the prescribed deposit information. In fact, when asked to provide it, in August 2022 she sent him documentation purporting to be the prescribed information. However, the deposit was not protected until 3rd March 2023. During her oral evidence, the Respondent accepted that she had not initially protected the deposit, and didn’t consider it necessary to do so because she said she always returned the deposit in full. However, on this occasion she (belatedly) protected the deposit in 2023 because it was important to Mr Antalicz.[18]Mr Anatlicz paid rent of £850 per month from October 2021 to April 2022 in respect of the studio flat, when the rent increased to £875.00 per month. He paid his rent directly to the Respondent. We have been provided with a copy of Mr Anatlicz’s bank statements confirming payment of the rent, and accompanying WhatsApp messages showing where agreed deductions have been applied to the rent. For instance Mr Anatlicz deducted £105 from the rent paid in July 2023, and £17.80 from the rent paid on 1st November 2023.[19]Mr Anatlicz also did not receive a gas safety certificate, an EICR report or How to Rent guide at the start of his tenancy.[20]He says that shortly after the tenancy began, in November 2021 he reported the roof was leaking. However, this was not fixed until June 2022, but subsequently began leaking again.[21]Mr Anatlicz’s spouse moved in to the studio flat at the Property on 9th October 2023.[22]The Applicants’ bundle contains various e-mail exchanges between Mr Antalicz and the Respondent regarding conditions at the Property. For instance WhatsApp messages sent on 10th and 26th April 2022 regarding leaks to the roof. Also on 7th October 2023 he e-mails the Respondent about health and safety standards at the Property, and on 25th October 2023 about electrical issues and blocked guttering. Furthermore, from 1st October 2023 Mr Antalicz’s sent a number of e-mails to the Respondent regarding the lapsed HMO licence. He also provided information, including links to Hounslow’s website, regarding how to renew the HMO licence. The Respondent replied assuring him she would address this in due course.[23]Eventually, Mr Anatlicz began communicating with Hounslow regarding the expired HMO licence. As a result, the Council visited the Property on 31st October 2023, and served two Improvement Notices on 7th November 2023, which expired on 7th March 2024 without the necessary works being completed. This is confirmed by an e-mail from Hounslow’s investigation officer, Mr Stephen O’Brien, sent to Justice for Tenants on 12th June 2024 confirming the works were not completed, but enforcement action was unlikely because by that date the Respondent had moved back into the Property (although at that time Mr Antalicz was still occupying the annex).[24]Copies of the Improvement Notices are in the Applicants’ bundle. The first one relates to the main house and identifies excess cold, fire and electrical hazards as category 1 hazards. It also identifies lighting, risk of a fall on the stairs, damp, mould, sanitation and drainage, food safety, lack of a carbon monoxide detector and smoke alarm, crowding, domestic hygiene, pests and refuse as category 2 hazards.[25]The second Improvement Notice relates to the studio flat and identifies excess cold, fire and electrical hazards as category 1 hazards. It also identifies damp, mould, sanitation and drainage, food safety, lack of a carbon monoxide detector, crowding, domestic hygiene, pests and refuse as category 2 hazards.[26]In addition to the Improvement Notices, on 14th November 2023 Hounslow wrote to the Respondent notifying her that the Property was occupied as an unauthorised HMO, and unauthorised use of the studio flat as a self-contained unit. On 14th December 2023 Hounslow issued a Notice of Intent to Impose a Financial Penalty of £26,000 against the Respondent for having control or managing the Property without an HMO licence. The Respondent states this amount was later reduced to £7,500.[27]Mr Anatlicz states that the Respondent served an invalid notice requiring possession on 15th November 2023 and on 1st December 2023. He also states that on around 23rd February 2024 she visited the Property unannounced at 12am when it’s claimed she was peeking through the windows. Later the same day she returned to the Property with her husband, the latter approached Mr Anatlicz in a threatening manner, which he reported to the police. We have been provided with a copy of Mr Antalicz’s e-mail sent to Hounslow on 24th February 2024 regarding this incident.[28]Mr Anatalicz and his spouse both moved out of the Property on 1st July 2024.[29]As to the main house, we have been provided with a written tenancy dated 11th August 2022, commencing 15th August 2022, for a term of six months. It shows a deposit of £2,450.00 was paid. Mr Korva complains that the deposit was not protected, that they were not provided with the How to Rent guide, a gas safety or energy performance certificate nor an EICR report.[30]The occupiers named on the written tenancy agreement were as follows:30.1 Anand Korva30.2 Ramya Smruthi Pallati (referred to in some documentation as Ramya Korva)30.3 Kalyani Vadapalli30.4 Mithun Endrakanti[31]According to the written tenancy agreement the rent due was £2,450.oo per month, however, the Applicants claim the Respondent required them to pay £2,500 per month, increasing to £2,650 from September 2023.[32]Mr Korva’s bank statements show he paid rent to Mr Kota of £2,500 per month up to September 2023, and from 16th September 2023 he paid £2,650 in respect of the main house. Mr Korva made payments on behalf of all the occupiers, who would transfer their respective contributions to him.[33]Kalyani Vadapalli vacated the Property on 15th November 2022. Dhanush Kumar Pathola moved in on 28th September 2022, and Manish Kumar Endla moved in on 12th January 2023.[34]There is a subsequent written tenancy dated 12th September 2023, commencing 16th September 2023 for a term of six months. In his witness statement Mr Korva states that the Respondent agreed that a maximum of six people could live in the main house, and that she was always informed of the name and provided with a copy of the passport of each occupier.[35]The occupiers named on the September 2023 written tenancy agreement are as follows:35.1 Dhanush Kumar Pathola35.2 Manish Kumar Endla35.3 Anand Korva35.4 Ramya Korva[36]Anand Korva and Ramya Smruthi Pallati occupied the loft room from 15th August 2022, where they lived with their daughter who was born on 24th January 2023.[37]Mr Korva states that during their occupancy various repairs and maintenance issues were not addressed, particularly electrical issues. Mr Korva has provided photographic evidence showing conditions at the Property (see pages 300 to 316 of the Applicants’ bundle). He also states that after the occupiers involved Hounslow council, the Respondent tried to evict them, and that she and her husband have tried to coerce them into leaving by unannounced visits, and in February 2024 looking through their windows.[38]They moved out on 12th May 2024.[39]Dhanush Kumar Pathola lived at the Property from 28th September 2022 until 30th April 2024. He occupied the ground floor front left bedroom in the main house.[40]Manish Kumar Endla lived at the Property from 12th January 2023 until 30th April 2024, occupying the ground floor middle left bedroom.[41]Mithun Endrakanti is named in the August 2022 tenancy agreement, but not in the September 2023. According to his witness statement, he lived at the Property from 15th August 2022 until 30th April 2024, occupying the ground floor front right bedroom in the main house.[42]All of the above have provided witness statements which are consistent with the written evidence from Mr Antalicz and Mr Korva. The Respondent’s Case[43]The main focuses of the Respondent’s evidence and arguments were her health, finances and the Applicants’ alleged exploitation of her. Some language in her statement of case is intemperate, and in places insulting towards the Applicants.[44]The Respondent states it was never her intention to rent out the Property as a business or for profit.[45]The Respondent also states that she left the United Kingdom in 2021 in order to receive treatment for mental health condition because the required treatment was not available to her in the UK. She has provided a series of what appear to be prescriptions from Dr V.S. Rajasekhar M.D. consultant psychiatrist of the Manasvi Psychiatric Clinic, which appears to be based in Hyderabad (India). The patient’s name on the prescriptions is Mrs Charchita and Mrs Charchita Singh and the prescriptions are dated 3rd January 2022, 14th January 2022, 4th February 2022, 24th February 2022, 9th April 2022, 12th May 2023, 30th October 2023, 25th January 2024, 22nd July 2024, 31st August 2024, 15th May 2025, 21st August 2025, and 4th September 2025. However, the handwriting on the prescriptions is ineligible so it is unclear what is being prescribed, whether any diagnosis is given, and if so what.[46]The Respondent alleges that the Applicants conspired against her to damage the Property and to make false allegations about her husband to the police, and to the council about her and the Property. In her witness statement she also claims that the Applicants exploited her due to her ill health and absence from the UK, and they have harassed her too. We have not seen any evidence of the Applicants harassing the Respondent in the hearing bundles. She says that in response to their complaints, she considered it would be better for her to give them notice so that they could find a better place; however, she states they responded by harassing her.[47]The Respondent says she was unaware of the need to renew the HMO licence due to her mental health condition. She also claims the Applicants’ failure to forward her mail despite her repeated requests was a contributory factor. Nonetheless, she says she acted promptly once she received the Council’s notification.[48]The Respondent has provided bank statements showing that her receipts from Mr Antalicz correspond with the payments debited from his bank account. However, the payments she received for the main house do not correspond with Mr Korva’s bank statements. This appears to be because Mr Korva paid the rent to Mr Kota, who then transferred sums to the Respondent. However, it is evident that Mr Kota did not transfer the full amount received from Mr Korva.[49]The Respondent has also provided a spreadsheet of her expenses, which is reproduced below:[50]The Respondent has provided a summary print out of fuel costs from December 2023 to May 2024 showing a substantial increase, for instance the charges from 3rd January 2024 to 2nd February 2024 is £741.03, which she says is because Mr Korva had more people staying at the Property than she had agreed to.[51]The Respondent states that she provided gas safety and electrical safety certificates, but not an Energy Performance Certificate because she doesn’t know what that is. She nonetheless asserts that all the mechanical and electrical installations in the Property are functioning adequately, are energy efficient, and she has carried out the repairs required by Hounslow.[52]The Respondent has provided photographs showing that the microwave and/or oven required cleaning, and she says that Mr Antalicz covered the CCTV cameras with duct tape and installed corkboard in the studio flat, which she considers unsightly.[53]The Respondent states that when she gave the Applicants notice to vacate the Property, they threatened her in e-mails, and intimidated her in phone calls and messages. She adds that Mr Korva did not pay the April 2024 rent, asking instead to use the deposit as rent.[54]As to her financial circumstances, the Respondent states that she is in receipt of Universal Credit, and provided written confirmation from the Department for Work and Pensions that the amount of Universal Credit she was paid on 12th June 2025 was £385.00.[55]When asked about her financial circumstances during the hearing, the Respondent explained that her brother-in-law was paying the mortgage on the Property for her, that she was struggling financially and finding it difficult to support her children, and was unable to pay for her daughter’s wedding. When asked about her children, the Respondent stated she has a son and daughter aged 25 and 28 years old respectively, and they both live in the United States.[56]The Respondent has resumed occupation of the Property, and by a notice dated 8th April 2025, Hounslow confirmed it intends to revoke the HMO licence on the grounds that the Property is no longer occupied as an HMO to which of the Housing Act 2004 applies. The Applicants’ Reply[57]Amongst the arguments raised in the Applicants’ Reply, they dispute the Respondent complied with the Improvement Notices, stating works were not completed by the date they vacated. They also state that the energy costs reflect the Property was poorly insulated, as stated in the Improvement Notices. They also claim the Respondent’s admitted ignorance to what an EPC is indicative of disregard of the regulatory requirements. The Legislation[58]Extracts from the Housing Act 2004 and the Housing and Planning Act 2016 are in the Appendix, however, it is convenient to set out the relevant provisions in section 254 here, starting with section 254(4) which reads: (4) A building or a part of a building meets the converted building test if—(a) it is a converted building;(b) it contains one or more units of living accommodation that do not consist of a self-contained flat or flats (whether or not it also contains any such flat or flats);(c) the living accommodation is occupied by persons who do not form a single household (see section 258);(d) the living accommodation is occupied by those persons as their only or main residence or they are to be treated as so occupying it (see section 259);(e) their occupation of the living accommodation constitutes the only use of that accommodation; and(f) rents are payable or other consideration is to be provided in respect of at least one of those persons' occupation of the living accommodation.[59]Section 254(8) continues: In this section— … “self-contained flat” means a separate set of premises (whether or not on the same floor)—(a) which forms part of a building;(b) either the whole or a material part of which lies above or below some other part of the building; and(c) in which all three basic amenities are available for the exclusive use of its occupants The Issues[60]In light of the above, the issues for the Tribunal to determine are as follows:[61]Whether the Respondent committed an offence under section 72(1) as a result of the following:61.1 Being in control of or managing the Property;61.2 Whether the Property was an HMO;61.3 Whether a licence was required for the Property; and61.4 If so, whether there was a licence for the Property.[62]We need to determine whether we were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all the elements of the offence at paragraphs 61.1 to 61.4 above are met, during the period in which the offence was committed. We also need to consider whether we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities whether any guilty party has a defence to the commission of the offence under section 72(4) and/or 72(5) of the 2004 Act?[63]If an offence has been committed, the maximum amount of rent repayment order that can be ordered under section 44(3) of the 2016 Act.[64]Whether the Respondent had been responsible for the cost of any utilities at the Property.[65]The severity of the offence.[66]Any relevant conduct of the guilty party or parties, the Respondent’s financial circumstances, whether she has any previous convictions of a relevant offence, and the conduct of the Applicants to which the Tribunal should have regard in exercising its discretion as to the amount of the rent repayment order. The Tribunal’s Decision and Reasons[67]The Tribunal reached its decision after considering the parties’ oral and written evidence, including documents referred to in that evidence, and taking into account its assessment of the evidence[68]As appropriate, and where relevant to the Tribunal’s decision the evidence is referred to in the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision.[69]This determination does not refer to every matter raised by the parties, or every document the Tribunal reviewed or took into account in reaching its decision. However, this doesn't imply that any points raised or documents not specifically mentioned were disregarded. If a point or document was referred to in the evidence or submissions that was relevant to a specific issue, it was considered by the Tribunal.[70]As stated, the relevant legal provisions are set out in the Appendix to this decision. The offence under section 72(1) Housing Act 2004[71]The Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all the elements of the offence under section 72(1) are proved against Respondent as set out at paragraphs 72 to 90 below. Control of or Managing the Property[72]We find that the Respondent was a person managing the Property as defined by section 263(3), which states a person manages premises where they are an owner or lessee of the premises, and they receive the rack-rent either directly, or indirectly through an agent. The Respondent is the freehold owner of the Property, and she received rent for the studio directly from Mr Antalicz, and in respect of the main house she received it indirectly via Mr Kota.[73]We also note that Hounslow found the Respondent was in control of the Property for the purposes of the Improvement Notices dated 7th November 2023 Whether the Property is an HMO[74]The Applicants argue that the Property is an HMO by virtue of the standard test at section 254(2), and the converted building test at section 254(4).[75]We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Property meets the standard test, and is therefore an HMO as defined by section 254(2), for the following reasons:75.1 The Property consists of five living units, namely the three ground floor and one first floor bedrooms in the main house, plus the studio.75.2 In our judgment the studio does not meet the definition of a self-contained flat as set out at section 254(8). That definition would apply if the studio contained a toilet, washing and cooking facilities, formed part of a building, either the whole or part of the studio or some part of it, was above or below some other part of the building. It is this latter part of the definition that is not satisfied. The studio is to the rear and the side of the main house, but no part of it lies above or below the main house.75.3 The living accommodation is occupied by different households. Mr and Mrs Korva form one household, and Mr Antalicz, Mr Endrakanti, Mr Pathola and Mr Endla are all separate households.75.4 All the Applicants confirm in their witness statements that they occupied the Property as their only or main residence, and this point was not disputed.75.5 Their occupation of the Property was the only use of the accommodation.75.6 The Applicants have provided confirmation that they paid rent to occupy the Property, and the Respondent confirms she has received rent directly and indirectly for their occupation of the property.75.7 All of the Applicants in the main house shared cooking facilities, and the occupiers of the ground floor bedrooms all shared a bathroom.[76]We are also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Property meets the converted building test, and is therefore an HMO as defined by section 254(4), for the following reasons:76.1 The Property is a converted building because it was originally constructed as a single storey dwelling, which has since been extended into the former loft space to make it a two storey dwelling. It has also been extended to the rear and side to create an studio annex.76.2 We have already found that the studio is not a self-contained flat as defined by section 254(8), but even if we are wrong, the main house is not a self-contained flat. Accordingly, the Property consists of one or more living units which are not self-contained flats. Even if the studio is in fact a self-contained flat, that would not prevent section 254(4)(b) from applying.76.3 For the reasons stated at paragraph 75.3 above we find that the living accommodation is occupied by more than one household.76.4 As stated at paragraph 75.4 above, we find that the Applicants occupy the Property as their only or main residence.76.5 For the reasons stated at paragraph 75.5 above we find that the Applicants’ occupation of the Property was the only use of the accommodation.76.6 Their occupation of the Property was the only use of the accommodation.76.7 As stated, the Applicants have provided confirmation that they paid rent to occupy the Property, and the Respondent confirms she has received rent directly and indirectly for their occupation of the property. Was a Licence Required[77]Having found the Property is an HMO as defined by sections 254(2) and 254(4), we also find that the Property required a licence under section 61.[78]Neither exemption at subsection 61(1)(a) or subsection 61(1)(b) applies.[79]That the Property requires an HMO licence is also supported by the fact that Hounslow fined the Respondent for having control or managing the Property without an HMO licence after it issued a Notice of Intent dated 14th December 2023. Whether there was a licence for the Property[80]As stated, on 14th December 2023 Hounslow issued a Notice of Intent to impose a financial penalty, which enclosed details of the offence. These documents are in the Applicant’s bundle at pages 233 to 245, and includes the following (at page 241): This subject property was previously a Licensed House in Multiple Occupation. The licence was issued on the 9th June 2020 for a maximum permitted occupancy of 3 households and 5 persons. The HMO Licence expired on the 16th April 2023. Mrs Charchita Singh Thakur was the licence holder. … The previous HMO Licence for this property expired on 16th April 2023. Despite reminders to submit a HMO renewal Application, no such Application had been received by the time of the receipt of our Service Request about this Property. Following email correspondence and requests between myself and you as the Legal Owner, a completed HMO Application was only submitted on the 2nd November 2023, which was following my visit to the property on the 31st October 2023 and me informing you of my findings.[81]It is therefore evident that Hounslow considered the Respondent did not have an HMO licence during the period the Applicants are claiming for, being 17th April 2023 until 1st November 2023.[82]This is supported by e-mail exchanges between Mr Antalicz and the Respondent in October 2023 when he provides her with information regarding applying for an HMO licence, and she responds that she will address this. Furthermore, in her statement of case for these proceedings, the Respondent expressly confirms there was a delay in her applying to renew the licence.[83]Taken together, we consider the above is sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Property did not have an HMO licence between 17th April 2023 and 1st November 2023. Reasonable Excuse[84]We have considered whether any of the points raised by the Respondent may amount to a reasonable excuse.[85]We have firstly taken into account her mental health condition. However, we consider there is insufficient medical evidence to satisfy us on the balance of probabilities that this amounts to a reasonable excuse. The prescriptions provided by the Respondent are illegible, therefore we cannot read what medication she was prescribed, nor do we have any medical evidence regarding her diagnosis and to what extent any diagnosed condition might be relevant to the Respondent having control of or managing an HMO without a licence, or affect her ability to renew the HMO licence that expired in April 2023.[86]We have also taken into account the Respondent’s assertion that the Applicants’ alleged failure to forward her correspondence despite her previous requests prevented her renewing the HMO licence. However, considering the contemporaneous exchanges, we find that the Applicants, particularly Mr Antalicz, were trying to assist her as much as they could with renewing the licence. Mr Antalicz went so far as to send her a link to Hounslow’s website where she could obtain further information about obtaining a licence. We find that level of assistance is inconsistent with the Respondent’s assertion that the Applicants were uncooperative.[87]We also have no evidence that during this period the Respondent was complaining of being denied access to her post. Her and her husband visited the Property in February 2024 to collect post, but that is 10 months after the previous HMO licence expired.[88]We have also considered whether the Respondent being out of the UK and having left Mr Kota to deal with the day to day issues relating to the Property are reasonable excuses. However, we find they do not. As the landlord and owner of the Property, we consider it is the Respondent’s responsibility to ensure that any legal and regulatory requirements are complied with. Furthermore, Mr Kota is not a professional managing agent, which is a further reason why it would not be appropriate to rely on his involvement as an excuse.[89]Therefore we do not consider these matters, nor any other issues in this case amount to a reasonable excuse. Accordingly, the Respondent has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that she has a defence to the application.[90]In the circumstances, having found that the Respondent committed an offence under section 72(1), we also find it is appropriate to exercise our discretion by making a rent repayment order, there being no exceptional circumstances that would justify refusing to make the order. Amount of the Rent Repayment Order[91]In its decision in Acheampong v Roman and others [2022] UKUT 239 (LC), the Upper Tribunal recommended a four-stage approach to determine the amount of the rent repayment order, that approach is summarised as follows:91.1 Ascertain the whole of the rent for the relevant period;91.2 Subtract any element of that sum that represents payment by the landlord for utilities that only benefited the tenants;91.3 Consider how serious this offence was, both compared to other types of offence in respect of which a rent repayment order may be made and compared to other examples of the same type of offence; and;91.4 Consider whether any deduction from, or addition to, that figure should be made pursuant to section 44(4) of the 2016 Act in the light of the parties’ conduct, the landlord’s financial circumstances and whether the landlord has previously been convicted of an offence to which Chapter 4 of the 2016 Act applies.[92]The Tribunal has adopted the approach recommended in Acheampong v Roman and others. The Whole of the Rent Paid[93]We find the relevant period for which a rent repayment order may be made corresponds with the period of the Applicants’ claim, namely 17th April 2023 being the day after the previous HMO licence expired, to 1st November 2023, which is the day before the Respondent’s 2nd November 2023 application for an HMO licence.[94]The Applicants have provided bank statements confirming the payments made to the Respondent and to Mr Kato during the period of the claim. They have also submitted spreadsheets with additional narrative to explain certain sums, including calculations where the amount claimed relates to partial months. Based on these calculations, the Applicants claim the whole of the rent paid during the relevant period is as follows:94.1 Anand Korva and Ramya Smruthi Pallati jointly claim £9,591.24;94.2 Mithun Endrakanti claims £2,307.48;94.3 Dhanush Kumar Pathola claims £2,307.48;94.4 Manish Kumar Endla claims £2,307.48; and94.5 Jeno Antalicz claims £4,806.40. Utilities[95]Having calculated the whole of the rent paid during the relevant period as evidenced by each Applicant, the next issue is what sum, if any, is to be deducted for utilities. The Upper Tribunal made clear in Vadamalayan v Stewart and others [2020] UKUT 183 (LC), that it is not appropriate to deduct all of the landlord’s expenditure during the relevant period. In particular, the landlord’s expenses of repairing and maintaining a property were not deductible. The same principle applies to mortgage payments and HMO licence fees.[96]Regarding deductions, in in Acheampong v Roman the Upper Tribunal stated (at paragraph 9): …where the rent includes payments for utilities (which the tenant consumes and which do not benefit the landlord) it will usually be appropriate to deduct a sum representing that payment; a sum the tenant pays the landlord for utilities is not really rent.[97]The Respondent’s table of expenses list the utilities and other expenses she has incurred in respect of the Property. However, in light of the authorities above, a number of these expenses would not be deducted from any rent repayment order. In our judgment, the following expenses listed by the Respondent are not deductible: Expenditure Amount Mortgage £14,186.48 Drain masters £175 Electrician Yuvraj Randhawa £1,000 Gas engineer Lovepreet Singh £850 Hounslow Council HMO renewal £1,350[98]Most of the Respondent’s other expenses would be deductible as utilities, however, some of the deductions extend beyond the period of the claim. It would only be appropriate to deduct utilities relating to the period in respect of which a rent repayment order is made.[99]Based on the utility bills and bank statements provided by the Respondent, we calculate the deductions as follows: Date of payment/bill Item of expenditure Amount 3.4.2023 to 2.5.2023 Ovo Energy £402.43 11.4.2023 LB Hounslow council tax £229.64 13.4.2023 Vodafone £37.51 24.4.2023 TV license £41.00 3.5.2023 to 2.6.2023 Ovo Energy £296.53 10.5.2023 LB Hounslow council tax £230.00 12.5.2023 Vodafone £37.51 3.6.2023 to 2.7.2023 Ovo Energy £194.76 12.6.2023 LB Hounslow council tax £230.00 14.6.2023 Vodafone £37.51 3.7.2023 to 2.8.2023 Ovo Energy £153.84 10.7.2023 LB Hounslow council tax £230.00 12.7.2023 Vodafone £37.51 24.7.2023 TV license £41.00 3.8.2023 to 2.9.2023 Ovo Energy £156.46 10.8.2023 LB Hounslow council tax £230.00 15.8.2023 Vodafone £37.51 3.9.2023 to 2.10.2023 Ovo Energy £157.66 3.10.2023 to 2.11.2023 Ovo Energy £170.63 12.10.2023 Vodafone £12.57 14.10.2024 Affinity Water £126.82 23.10.2023 TV license £41.00 Total £3,131.89[100]It is for the Respondent to establish what amounts should be deducted. The Applicants have not challenged the Respondent’s figures but have merely put her to proof on the global amounts claimed. Although it has been necessary for us to make some adjustments to the Respondent’s figures, in the interests of proportionality, we have not apportioned the expenses. It means that any expenses incurred during the period 17th April 2023 to 1st November 2023 have been deducted where this is shown on the Respondent’s bank statement or a bill is provided.[101]Having calculated the utilities to be deducted as £3,131.89, we consider this sum should be divided equally between the six Applicants, which equates to a deduction of £521.98 from the amount of the rent repayment order payable to each Applicant. The Appropriate Amount of the Rent Repayment Order[102]The Applicants are seeking repayment of the total amount of rent paid in respect of the Property during this period, although in their skeleton argument, they argue 80% is an appropriate starting point.[103]At the final hearing the Respondent argued the amount of any rent repayment order should be zero, which is consistent with her statement of case which states (at paragraph 10): I am not responsible to pay any rent repayments to the applicants here. They rented my property and paid a rent so it’s a simple equation.[104]In fixing the appropriate sum the Tribunal had regard to Acheampong v Roman and others and the decision in Hallett v Parker [2022] UKUT 165 (LC). We have also taken into account that proper enforcement of licensing requirements against all landlords, good and bad, is necessary to ensure the general effectiveness of the licensing system and to deter evasion.[105]Regarding the seriousness of the offence in this application, namely being in control of or managing an HMO without a licence, we find this is at the lower end when compared to other offences for which a rent repayment order may be made.[106]We have also considered the seriousness of the offence compared to other cases of the same offence.[107]The mitigating features of the offence are that the period the Property was without an HMO licence was relatively limited, being around 6½ months, and the Respondent is understood to have no relevant pervious convictions.[108]However, we consider there are a number of aggravating features in this case.[109]Firstly, we find that the Respondent was aware of the need for an HMO licence because she had been issued with an HMO licence in respect of the Property in 2020.[110]We consider the condition of the Property, as reflected in the Improvement Notices which identified category 1 hazards as well as category 2 hazards demonstrates that the Property was in a poor condition. Ther severity of the hazards found was compounded by the number of hazards in both the main house and the studio.[111]Although exceeding the maximum number of permitted occupants is not an offence for which a rent repayment order can be made, we consider it is appropriate to treat it as an aggravating feature in this case. Particularly because the Respondent was aware or ought to have been aware that the number of permitted occupants was 5 individuals consisting of no more than 3 households, because she had applied to increase this number. Despite her application being refused, she nonetheless allowed 5 separate households to occupy the Property. We do not accept the Respondent’s allegation that Mr Korva allowed more people to live at the Property than she was aware of. This is not a point she raised at the time, even when the financial penalty was imposed in 2023. We therefore prefer Mr Korva’s evidence that the Respondent was kept informed of all occupants and she was given a photocopy of their passport, over the Respondent’s later assertion that she was unaware of the number of occupants.[112]As to the Respondent’s conduct more generally, we note she extended the Property without obtaining the relevant planning permission and building control approval.[113]She failed to protect the £2,450.00 deposit paid in August 2022, and belatedly protected Mr Antalicz’s deposit.[114]She failed to provide the Applicants with gas safety and energy performance certificates, an EICR and the How to Rent guide. Although she claims to have provided a gas safety certificate, the only one contained in the Respondent’s bundle is dated 19th January 2024, which postdates the period of the offence.[115]The Respondent also sent the Applicants invalid notices requiring possession.[116]When her and her husband visited the Property in February 2024 they behaved inappropriately by looking through the windows, and her husband behaved in a threatening manner towards Mr Antalicz. Although the Respondent denies this, and claims that this was a false allegation made to the police, we prefer Mr Antalicz’s account because it is supported by a contemporaneous e-mail he sent to Mr O’Brien. Whereas, there is no contemporaneous denial from the Respondent.[117]Regarding the Applicants’ conduct, we find they behaved appropriately, for instance, they paid their rent. We reject the Respondent’s claims that they damaged the Property, the photographic evidence and the Improvement Notices indicate that the defects at the Property were due to disrepair and a failure to adequate maintain the Property, rather than to tenant misuse. As stated above, we find the Applicants informed the Respondent about the number and identity of the occupants. It follows we find the amount of the utility bills is not due to the occupants exceeding the number the Respondent agreed to.[118]We have taken into account the above conduct when deciding on the amount of the rent repayment order, and we have had regard to paragraphs 47 to 56 of the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Newell v Abbott [2024] UKUT 181 (LC). Paragraph 47 of that decision includes the following: It is an important part of this Tribunal’s function to promote consistent decision making. It is relevant therefore to consider those cases involving licensing offences in which the level of rent repayment has been determined by the Tribunal. Each case is different and in each case the decision maker must exercise their own discretion, but the pattern of decisions in other cases is a necessary point of reference and a relevant factor to which regard should be had.[119]From this, we considered the case summaries at paragraphs 48 to 56 of Newell v Abbott provide helpful guidance as to where in this case, the amount of the rent repayment order may lie, when compared to other cases. However, we are also mindful of the Deputy President’s guidance that “…each case is different and in each case the decision maker must exercise their own discretion…”.[120]We have been guided by Williams v Parmer where an unlicensed HMO was in a poor condition, and the Tribunal ordered an RRO of 80% against a professional landlord. Although the Respondent is not a professional landlord, there are other aggravating features in this case, for instance the regulatory failings as regards the failure to, or belatedly protecting, the Applicants’ deposits, the breach of planning and Building Regulations, the failure to provide gas safety and energy performance certificates.[121]We were also guided by Choudhury v Razak, involving a selective licence of a flat in a poor condition with fire safety deficiencies, where the tenants’ deposit was not protected, and the landlord did not have a gas safety certificate. In that case, a rent repayment order of 75% was made.[122]We therefore consider that 75% is justified where there are numerous aggravating features present, as in this case.[123]In deciding on the appropriate amount of a rent repayment order, we need to take the Respondent’s financial circumstances and any other relevant mitigation into account.[124]The Respondent has put forward personal mitigation in relation to her health and her finances. Regarding her health, we have not treated the Respondent’s mental health condition as personal mitigation, because we find there is no adequate medical evidence to support a diagnosis, or how any condition she may have been diagnosed with how affects her.[125]As to the Respondent’s finances, we have disregarded her desire to financially support her adult children and to contribute to her daughter’s wedding. We have been given no reason to believe that they are financially dependent on her, and a rent repayment order should be prioritised over her daughter’s wedding.[126]Nonetheless, and despite our criticism of the Respondent’s conduct, we consider there is mitigation in relation to her financial circumstances.[127]In Newell v Abbott the Upper Tribunal referred to the case of Daff v Gyalui [2023] UKUT 134 (LC) where a rent repayment order of 10% was made in a less serious case of a landlord who was out of the UK, let her property through a professional managing agent, and where it was held that her poor health had contributed to her inattentiveness, and her financial circumstances were precarious. We consider this has some similar features, in that the Respondent was not in the UK, she had used an agent (albeit a not a professional managing agent), and she is experiencing financial difficulties. However, there are features in the present case that are far more serious. We nonetheless consider Daff shows a substantial reduction may be warranted where a landlord is in financial difficulty.[128]Taking the above into account, and in light of the circumstances of the present case, we consider a rent repayment order of 25% is justified. We consider this sufficiently reflects the severity of this offence when compared to other offences of the same type, while also factoring in the Respondent’s financial circumstances.[129]Accordingly, the amount of the rent repayment order is as follows: Applicant Amount Paid Utilities Deducted Rent RRO Amount (rent *25%) Anand Korva £4,795.62£521.98£4,273.64£1,068.41 Ramya Smruthi Pallati £4,795.62£521.98£4,273.64£1,068.41 Mithun Endrakanti £2,307.48£521.98£1,785.50£446.38 Dhanush Kumar Pathola £2,307.48£521.98£1,785.50£446.38 Manish Kumar Endla £2,307.48£521.98£1,785.50£446.38 Jeno Antalicz £4,806.40£521.98£4,284.42£1,071.11 Total £21,320.08£3,131.88£18,188.20£4,547.05[130]The Tribunal would remind the parties that it does not have the power to order the payment of the rent repayment order. It can only determine the amount of the rent repayment order. Fees[131]The Applicants have claimed reimbursement of the Tribunal fees of £330, and as they have succeeded in this Application, we consider it is just to order the Respondent reimburses that sum pursuant to rule 13(2). Name: Judge Tueje Date: 28th October 2025 Date corrected: 18th November 2025 Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. 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. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Appendix of Relevant Legislation Housing Act 2004 72 Offences in relation to licensing of HMOs(1) A person commits an offence if he is a person having control of or managing an HMO which is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 61(1)) but is not so licensed.(2) A person commits an offence if– (a) he is a person having control of or managing an HMO which is licensed under this Part, (b) he knowingly permits another person to occupy the house, and (c) the other person’s occupation results in the house being occupied by more households or persons than is authorised by the licence.(3) A person commits an offence if– (a) he is a licence holder or a person on whom restrictions or obligations under a licence are imposed in accordance with section 67(5), and (b) he fails to comply with any condition of the licence.(4) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1) it is a defence that, at the material time– (a) a notification had been duly given in respect of the house under section 62(1), or (b) an application for a licence had been duly made in respect of the house under section 63, and that notification or application was still effective (see subsection (8)).(5) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (3) it is a defence that he had a reasonable excuse– (a) for having control of or managing the house in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1), or (b) for permitting the person to occupy the house, or (c) for failing to comply with the condition, as the case may be.[6]A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine.[7]A person who commits an offence under subsection (3) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. (7A) See also section 249A (financial penalties as alternative to prosecution for certain housing offences in England). (7B) If a local housing authority has imposed a financial penalty on a person under section 249A in respect of conduct amounting to an offence under this section the person may not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the conduct.[8]For the purposes of subsection (4) a notification or application is “effective” at a particular time if at that time it has not been withdrawn, and either–(a) the authority have not decided whether to serve a temporary exemption notice, or (as the case may be) grant a licence, in pursuance of the notification or application, or(b) if they have decided not to do so, one of the conditions set out in subsection (9) is met.[9]The conditions are–(a) that the period for appealing against the decision of the authority not to serve or grant such a notice or licence (or against any relevant decision of the appropriate tribunal) has not expired, or(b) that an appeal has been brought against the authority’s decision (or against any relevant decision of such a tribunal) and the appeal has not been determined or withdrawn.[10]In subsection (9) “relevant decision” means a decision which is given on an appeal to the tribunal and confirms the authority’s decision (with or without variation). Housing and Planning Act 2016 40 Introduction and key definitions(1) This Chapter confers power on the First-tier Tribunal to make a rent repayment order where a landlord and committed an offence to which this Chapter applies.(2) A rent repayment order is an order requiring the landlord under a tenancy of housing in England to – (a) repay an amount of rent paid by a tenant, or (b) pay a local housing authority an amount in respect of a relevant award of universal credit paid (to any person) in respect of rent under the tenancy.(3) A reference to “an offence to which this Chapter applies” is to an offence, of a description specified in the table, that is committed by a landlord in relation to housing in England let to that landlord. Act section general description of offence 1 Criminal Law Act 1977 section 6(1) violence for securing entry 2 Protection from Eviction Act 1977 section 1(2), (3) or (3A) eviction or harassment of occupiers 3 Housing Act 2004 section 30(1) failure to comply with improvement notice 4 section 32(1) failure to comply with prohibition order etc 5 section 72(1) control or management of unlicensed HMO 6 section 95(1) control or management of unlicensed house 7 This Act section 21 breach of banning order(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), an offence under section 30(1) or 32(1) of the Housing Act 2004 is committed in relation to housing in England let by a landlord only if the improvement notice or prohibition order mentioned in that section was given in respect of a hazard on the premises let by the landlord (as opposed, for example, to common parts). 41 Application for rent repayment order (1) A tenant or a local housing authority may apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a rent repayment order against a person who has committed an offence to which this Chapter applies. (2) A tenant may apply for a rent repayment order only if – (a) the offence relates to housing that, at the time of the offence, was let to the tenant, and (b) the offence was committed in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made. 43 Making of a rent repayment order (1) The First-tier Tribunal may make a rent repayment order if satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that a landlord has committed an offence to which this Chapter applies (whether or not the landlord had been convicted). (2) A rent repayment order under this section may be made only on an application under section 41. (3) The amount of a rent repayment order under this section is to be determined in accordance with – (a) section 44 (where the application is made by a tenant); 44 Amount of order: tenants (1) Where the First-tier Tribunal decides to make a rent repayment order under section 43 in favour of a tenant, the amount is to be determined in accordance with this section. (2) The amount must relate to rent paid during the period mentioned in the table. If the order is made on the ground that the landlord has committed the amount must relate to rent paid by the tenant in respect of an offence mentioned in row 1 or 2 of the table in section 40(3) the period of 12 months ending with the date of the offence an offence mentioned in row 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 of the table in section 40(3) a period, not exceeding 12 months, during which the landlord was committing the offence (3) The amount that the landlord may be required to repay in respect of a period must not exceed— (a) the rent paid in respect of that period, less (b) any relevant award of universal credit paid (to any person) in respect of rent under the tenancy during that period. (4) In determining the amount the tribunal must, in particular, take into account— (a) the conduct of the landlord and the tenant, (b) the financial circumstances of the landlord, and (c) whether the landlord has at any time been convicted of an offence to which this Chapter applies.