8A Spring Corner, Feltham, TW13 4PA LON/00AT/HMF/2025/0717
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No LON/00AT/HMF/2025/0717
Between
Monika PetraityteApplicantJagna KargulRespondent
Before
Judge TuejeMr S. Wheeler MCIEH, CEnvHIn person for the ApplicantIn person Application for a rent repayment order by the licencee: sections 40, 41, 43 and for the RespondentVenue 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LRDate 26 January 2026Hearing 2025-12-03Property: 8A Spring Corner, Feltham, TW13 4PAType of application: 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 Judge Tueje
DECISION
2 In this determination, statutory references relate to the Housing Act 2004 unless otherwise stated. Decisions of the Tribunal(1) The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did commit an offence under section 72(1) without reasonable excuse.(2) The Tribunal makes a rent repayment order against the Respondent for the 25-day period from 28th January 2025 to 21st February 2025 in the sum of £164.37, which is to be paid to the Applicant within 28 days of the date this Decision is sent to the parties.(3) The Tribunal determines that the Respondent shall pay the Applicant £330.00 within 28 days of the date this Decision is sent to the parties, in respect of the reimbursement of the tribunal fees paid by the Applicant pursuant to rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.(4) The reasons for the Tribunal’s decisions are given below. The Application[1]The Tribunal received the Application for a rent repayment order dated 11th June 2025. It is made under section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 by the Applicant, who occupied the Property between 9th July 2023 and 21st February 2025.[2]The Applicant claims a rent repayment order of £4,800 being the total amount of rent paid to the Respondent during the period of the claim, which is stated to be 12 months.[3]The Application relates to the property known as 8A Spring Corner, Feltham, TW13 4PA (“the Property”). The Property is a self-contained flat, which is one of around 10 purpose built flats above commercial premises. The accommodation comprises a kitchen, shared bathroom, and three bedrooms, there being no communal living room. The Property also had a back garden.[4]The Applicant occupied the Property by virtue of a written agreement entered into with the Respondent, commencing 9th July 2023. The agreement is described as a lodger agreement[5]As stated, the Application is dated 11th June 2025. By an order dated 4th July 2025 the Tribunal gave directions, making provision for the Applicant to file documents supporting the Application by 15th August 2025, and the Respondent to file documents supporting her defence by 26th September 2025. 3[6]The Respondent e-mailed the Tribunal on 26th September 2025 explaining that for health reasons, she had been unable to submit a bundle within the required timeframe. She sought an extension until 15th October 2025, and attached a fit note to support the request. However, the Respondent did not submit a bundle within her requested extension, although the Tribunal did not deal with her request until after the proposed extension expired. Nonetheless, on 17th October 2025, noting the Respondent had failed to submit a bundle within the extended timeframe she requested, the Tribunal wrote regarding this non-compliance, and requested a response by 27th October 2025. On receiving no response from the Respondent, it notified the parties on 13th November 2025 that it was minded to debar the Respondent from participating in the proceedings due to her non-compliance.[7]The Applicant e-mailed the Tribunal supporting the Respondent being debarred, relying on her failure to comply with the original directions, and the extended period she had requested. The Respondent responded urging the Tribunal not to debar her from participating in the proceedings, and requesting 24 hours to submit documents, which the Tribunal granted.[8]The Respondent did not submit a hearing bundle, but she filed two witness statements, which were a day later than she had requested. The first one was prepared by her, the second by Alin Petru Banica, who occupied the Property at the same time as the Applicant and the Respondent. On 1st December 2025 Judge Foskett, noting the Respondent’s health problems, gave permission to the Respondent to rely on the late statements in support of her case.[9]Also on 1st December 2025 the Respondent e-mailed the Tribunal stating that due to health reasons, she would not be attending the hearing on 3rd December 2025. The e-mail continued that she did not want to “prolong these proceedings unnecessarily or incur further public expense.” She neither requested the hearing be postponed, nor expressly consented to the hearing proceeding in her absence. The Hearing[10]Neither party requested an inspection of the Property by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal did not consider one was necessary or proportionate.[11]The Applicant prepared a 58-page bundle for use at the hearing including the following documents:11.1 The RRO application form;11.2 Various documents pre-dating her occupation of the Property (e.g. fit note dated 20th February 2023, message dated 3rd March 2023 from the police confirming no action would be taken in relation to the Applicant’s complaint regarding a previous landlady etc.); 411.3 An e-mail from the Respondent to the Applicant sent on 3rd July 2023 (see paragraph 20 below);11.4 The Lodger Agreement signed by the parties commencing 9th July 2023;11.5 Proof of rent payments and contribution towards utilities from 10th July 2023 to 31st January 2025;11.6 Photographic evidence of the Property including broken furniture, condensation and mould growth;11.7 Information regarding the Applicant’s health, including a fit note covering the period 18th December 2024 to 17th February 2025, a letter from Dr S M Afzal Sohaib dated 13th January 2025, and evidence of associated medical expenses);11.8 Various communications between the Applicant and the Respondent, and the Applicant and the local housing authority; and11.9 Title information relating to the Property.[12]The Applicant attended the hearing and gave oral evidence.[13]Neither the Respondent nor Alin Petru Banica attended the hearing.[14]In light of the Respondent’s non-attendance, the Tribunal considered whether it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing in her absence. By rule 34, the Tribunal may proceed in the absence of a party where it is satisfied that the party had been notified of the hearing, and it is in the interests of justice to proceed.[15]We took into account that in her witness statement, the Respondent explained she would not be attending the hearing, and so she was aware of the hearing. Furthermore, although the Respondent did not request a postponement, she stated she did not wish to prolong the proceedings unnecessarily.[16]In light of the above, we considered the criteria at rule 34 to proceed in a party’s absence was met. In particular, the Applicant had attended the hearing and wished to proceed, and the Respondent did not request a postponement. In the circumstances, we considered it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing. The Background[17]The Applicant has provided information regarding her health and her living situation prior to living at the Property, which she states is relevant. She explains that her relationship with her previous (resident) landlady deteriorated to the point that she reported her landlady to the police for stalking and harassment. Although the police took no action, informing the Applicant it was a civil matter. 5[18]On moving out of that Property, Royal Borough of Greenwich, where she had been living, provided emergency accommodation due to the above mentioned health issues.[19]She began working at Kew Gardens on 15th May 2023. She was still in emergency accommodation at the time, she posted on the employee’s online notice board that she was looking for somewhere to rent. The Respondent also works there, and after seeing her notice approached her, invited her to view the Property, and she subsequently moved in.[20]On 3rd July 2023 the Respondent e-mailed the Applicant as follows: I've attached an agreement- it's a standard form so if anything needs to be corrected, please let me know. I've put 7 months only because my tenancy agreement renews on 1st February, and that's when the landlord can increase the rent (haven't had increase for a couple of year so I do expect one next year).[21]The Applicant’s agreement commenced 9th July 2023, the rent was £400 per month, exclusive of bills. Under the agreement, no deposit was paid, and either side was required to give 4 weeks’ notice of termination. The agreement also referred to the Respondent as the “Tenant” and the Applicant as the “Lodger”.[22]The Applicant explained that the Respondent rented the Property from the owner, and then rented out two rooms to others, including the Applicant. The Applicant had no contractual arrangement with the owner, and indeed had no contact with the owner. All communication with the owner regarding the Property was by the Respondent.[23]She states the Respondent informed her that she paid £1,200 per month to the owner, but also states the Respondent never showed her evidence of this. During the hearing, the Applicant stated that the Respondent’s agreement with the owner and the amount of rent she paid lacked transparency.[24]The Respondent states that it was not her intention to be financially exploitative, nor does she believe she was ever so. She states she took in co-sharers to reduce living expenses, and she believes she was fair in her dealings. Alin supports this, stating he believed the rent was a reasonable amount for the accommodation provided and the area. We are not satisfied that the Respondent sought to take advantage financially of the occupants, particularly having regard to the amount of rent being charged.[25]As to payments for utilities, initially the Respondent asked for a contribution, but then stopped, so the Applicant would simply estimate the amount, between £50 to £90 per month, and pay this to the Respondent, who never confirmed whether the amounts were correct. She has provided a 6 bank print out showing the rent paid to the Respondent plus additional amounts representing her contribution towards the utilities.[26]The Applicant states she was informed by the Respondent that the latter had lived at the Property for a number of years, and rented rooms out during that time, including renting a room to someone described as a Ukrainian refugee under the Government’s scheme.[27]This is consistent with the Respondent’s written evidence where she states that in 2022 she participated in the Homes for Ukraine Scheme, and as part of this scheme Hounslow council inspected the Property, and carried out DBS checks on her and the other person whom the Ukrainian national would be sharing with. She states the Property was approved as suitable, and Hounslow did not notify her that a licence was required.[28]As the Respondent’s account of accommodating a Ukrainian national is corroborated by the Applicant, we accept the Respondent’s evidence that the Property passed Hounslow’s inspection at that time. However, even though it seems the Property did not require a licence at that time, Hounslow could have subsequently introduced a licensing scheme. Therefore, while we consider this could be relevant to any mitigation, and we accept the Respondent’s explanation that she was unaware of any licensing scheme that may have been introduced, making any breach unintentional. However, we do not consider it would amount to a reasonable excuse if an offence were found to have been committed.[29]The Applicant complains that she was not provided with a How to Rent guide, EPC or gas safety certificate. She also states that various items of furniture in her room were broken, including the bed, which she had to fix herself after buying parts and borrowing a drill from the Respondent. She has provided receipts from August 2023 confirming purchasing hardware. The kitchen extractor fan was broken.[30]The Applicant adds that the windows were draughty and had condensation on them every morning, and the external wall in her room had mould growth which she had to treat monthly. She has provided photographic evidence of this, including close images. She states the mould ruined her personal possessions and meant she could not dry clothes in her room, which she therefore dried at the launderette during the winter incurring the cost, and sometimes shrinkage to her clothes.[31]She states the kitchen flooded during heavy rainfall.[32]She adds the Respondent and Alin were both unfriendly and cliquish, particularly the Respondent, who would go on holiday without telling her, did not reciprocate on being greeted in the morning, and spoke badly about the Applicant outside her room. She states that due to the Property being located in a block containing residential and commercial premises, the latter 7 caused noise and air pollution. Furthermore, the Respondent and Alin Banica would smoke in the kitchen.[33]In her witness statement, the Respondent disputes there was any disrepair, defects, or broken furniture at the start of the Applicant’s occupation, and that the Applicant never reported these during her occupation. She states that some furniture in the Applicant’s room was left broken. The Respondent also relies on photographic evidence showing the condition of the Property, but these are more wide-angled photographs.[34]Alin supports the Respondent’s evidence regarding the condition of the Property, however, we are not aware of the basis on which he could comment on the Applicant’s room, which is what she mainly complains about.[35]In light of the Applicant’s direct evidence regarding the condition of the Property, supported by more detailed photographs, we prefer her evidence regarding the condition of the Property. We have taken into account that Hounslow approved the condition of the Property, and the Respondent states she was not notified that any repairs were required. However, the inspection was in the year, before the Applicant began occupying the Property. Accordingly, that does not assist in establishing the condition of the Property at the time of the Applicant’s occupancy. Furthermore, the Respondent states the photographs she relies on were taken after she cleaned the room following the Applicant’s departure. Therefore, they do not necessarily depict mould growth that may have been present during the Applicant’s occupancy.[36]Throughout her occupancy, she lived at the Property with the Respondent and Alin Petru Banica.[37]As to the Applicant’s allegations about the Respondent’s behaviour towards her, the Respondent denies this. Although she accepts she avoided direct contact with her after the Applicant notified her she intended to take legal action against her. The Respondent also complains about an e-mail the Applicant sent to her work and private e-mail account on 4th July 2025 which read: “See you in court.” The Respondent found this e-mail to be intimidating and hostile.[38]We asked the Applicant about this during the hearing, and she explained she received an e-mail from the Tribunal notifying her of the proceedings. She was unaware the Tribunal had also sent a copy to the Respondent, so she forwarded the Tribunal’s e-mail to the Respondent with the message: “See you in court.” We have no reason to believe that the Applicant acted with any ill-intent in light of her explanation of this context, but the phrase is confrontational, and it is unsurprising that this comment made the Respondent feel disconcerted.[39]The Respondent and Alin also deny excluding the Applicant, the latter stating he was on friendly terms with the Applicant, they had attended the 8 theatre together, but he considered she preferred to keep to herself, and he respected that.[40]In around September 2024 the Applicant had a brief conversation with the Respondent stating that she may be moving out of the Property, but says that as a result of a change in her personal circumstances, in particular health issues and related private health care costs, she did not pursue looking for alternative accommodation. She states she raised this as a courtesy, so as to give the Respondent the maximum possible notice of her provisional plans. However, the Applicant makes clear that she did not state she would be moving out, only that she was thinking about doing so.[41]Subsequently, in January 2025 the Respondent asked her when she would be moving out, and on 21st January 2025 explained that she required the Applicant’s room from March 2025 so that a friend could move in.[42]The Applicant complains that: “She was presenting the situation as if I had no choice but to move out, simply because she told me to.”[43]The Applicant states the Respondent initiated the eviction process on 27th January 2025, and has provided a copy of the eviction notice which includes the following: You currently have an excluded lodger agreement with me because you share accommodation with me in the flat I'm renting. It is with regret that I wish to terminate the lodger agreement. I therefore give you notice that I require you to vacate the room, premises, facilities you share with me and my home on or before 28th March 2024. It is important that you are made aware that after the above date has passed, I do not need a court order to obtain possession because you are an excluded lodger. For further information, please see this gov.uk page about lodgers: https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/your-lodgers-tenancy-type If you are unsure about the contents of this letter you are urged to seek independent legal advice.[44]The Applicant has provided the various exchanges between her and the Respondent. We find them to be courteous on both sides. 9[45]On receiving the eviction notice the Applicant made enquiries and sought advice from various sources, including the local authority and from a firm of solicitors.[46]The Respondent asserts that she was the sole tenant of the Property, and that the other occupants, including the Applicant, were excluded occupiers.[47]As a result of consulting solicitors, we understand that the Applicant was advised that she is an assured shorthold tenant, we consider that advice is wrong. We raised this with the Applicant so that she had an opportunity to make any arguments she wished to, but she maintained that the advice she was given was correct.[48]The Applicant states, based on legal advice she was given, that she was an assured shorthold tenant because she had exclusive possession of her bedroom. Therefore, she argues, the lodger agreement she was asked to sign, is a sham agreement.[49]We do not consider the Applicant was an assured shorthold tenant by virtue of paragraph 10 of schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988. Schedule 1 provides the exceptions to occupiers who are not assured shorthold tenants. By paragraph 10, that exception applies where a landlord grants a tenancy to someone in accommodation which the landlord occupied as their only or principal home at the date the tenancy was granted, and throughout the tenancy.[50]The Respondent has a legal interest in the Property because she has a tenancy. She held that interest at the start of the Applicant’s occupation and throughout. Accordingly, the Applicant cannot be an assured shorthold tenant because she shares the Property, with that landlady, namely, the Respondent.[51]The Applicant cannot be an assured shorthold tenant of the Property owner because there is no contractual relationship between them.[52]The Applicant’s status is that of a licencee. The Respondent has a tenancy of the Property and has granted the Applicant a licence to occupy a room and share other parts of the Property.[53]Furthermore, the Applicant is an excluded occupier by virtue of section 3A(2) of the Protection From Eviction Act 1977.[54]It also follows that the Respondent was not under a legal obligation to provide a How to Rent guide, EPC or gas safety certificate to the Applicant.[55]Her discussion with the local authority included an exploration of whether the Property was an unlicensed HMO. It resulted in an e-mail sent by Hounslow’s Housing Enforcement team to the Applicant on 28th January 2025, which reads: 10 Hello Monika, Thank you for your reply. This property requires a licence so we will be investigating it as a possible HMO.[56]Hounslow sent a further e-mail on 5th February 2025. The subject was “Suspected HMO referral received”, and it included the following: Should we obtain evidence to suggest the property is in use as an HMO, we will work with the Legal Owner with a view to Licencing the property as a House in Multiple Occupation and thereby putting in place standards and requirements that the Licence Holder must adhere to in terms of occupation levels, safety standards within the property and also the general behaviour of the tenants.[57]Hounslow followed this with an e-mail sent to the Applicant on 10th March 2025, being after the Applicant vacated, which read: Thank you for getting in touch, in terms of an update. I can tell you that [I] got in touch with the manager of the property and brought the matter to their attention. I warned them they should another room be let to another occupant then they will be required to licence the property or face a civil penalty fine. As the premises is only occupied by two individuals, we cannot take enforcement action against the owner and or agent so have taken the decision to close the case. Should we receive another report of HMO use and obtain evidence of three or more unrelated people in occupation at the same time, we can enforce. But as it stands we cannot take any further action.[58]The Applicant states she also asked the Respondent for the Property owner’s details, and the Respondent informed her the owner is Sussexgate Limited, and provided a telephone number, e-mail and postal address.[59]The Applicant has obtained title information from Land Registry, and Sussexgate is not recorded as the proprietor, nor does it appear to have any legal interest in the Property. The Applicant continues: Upon the solicitors advice I asked Jagna whether she had explicit right to sublet rooms in her tenancy agreement. She told me she did not have a clause like that in her contract and that she had been subletting rooms in the property on her own without the knowledge of the landlord. 11 She has been subletting rooms for at least 3 years at 8A Spring Corner, TW13 4PA. She is giving people 'excluded lodger' contracts when they are in fact tenants in the eyes of the law. She has been doing this deliberately in order to convince unsuspecting tenants that they have less rights than they actually do and so she can manipulate and take advantage of them. She does not provide any landlord contact details to the tenants so the tenants cannot contact the landlord for repairs (e.g. the boiler was not serviced once the 1.5 years I lived there, there is mold and damp, there is no smoke alarm in the property, etc.)[60]In her written evidence and at the hearing, the Applicant argued that the Respondent breached her agreement with the owner by renting out rooms when there was no clause allowing this in her agreement. She states the solicitors she consulted advised as follows: They advised me that hypothetically the council could seize our flat and evict all three of us as ‘trespassers’ because Jagna had given us sham contracts and by doing so, she was in breach of her own tenancy agreement and as such all three of us – myself, Alin Banica and Jagna Kargul – were living there illegally.[61]As to there being no smoke alarm, we prefer the Respondent’s evidence on this point: she maintains there is a functioning smoke alarm. While the Applicant has provided direct evidence on this, compared to the Respondent’s hearsay evidence, we consider it is more likely than not that Hounslow would have only approved the Property under its Homes for Ukraine scheme unless there was a functioning smoke alarm that was hard wired. Furthermore, we consider it more likely than not that a functioning alarm when the Property was inspected in 2022, would still be present an functioning during the Applicant’s occupancy.[62]The Applicant maintains that because she is an assured shorthold tenant, the eviction notice the Respondent sent her is invalid. Furthermore, the Respondent could not rely on a section 21 notice as the Property is unlicensed, and none of the grounds justifying an eviction under schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 applied or were relied on.[63]In light of our finding that the Applicant is not an assured shorthold tenant, it follows that she is not entitled to the statutory protection afforded by the Housing Act 1988. By the terms of her lodger agreement she was entitled to 4 weeks’ notice, and the Respondent in fact gave her over 8 weeks’ notice to vacate the Property. Furthermore, the Respondent was not necessarily in breach of her tenancy agreement with the owner simply because there was no clause allowing her to rent rooms out. She would be in breach if there was a clause prohibiting her doing so, but the Applicant didn’t know when we asked her, whether the Respondent’s agreement had such a clause. In any event, even if she was prohibited from letting out rooms, it would not entitle the council to seize the Property and evict them, as the Applicant appears to have been advised. 12[64]When the Applicant sought advice from Hounslow, based on the information she provided, Hounslow initiated an investigation into whether there may be breach of licensing requirements. As part of its investigation, Hounslow notified the Applicant it would inspect the Property on 20th February 2025 at 6.30pm. The Applicant states she informed her co-sharers about the inspection, knowing that they normally return home from work before 6pm. However, she states that neither of them were present during the inspection, and states “they both deliberately missed the inspection in order to delay and impede the council’s investigation.”[65]Both the Respondent and Alin deny this allegation, and we accept their denials. That is because, even on the Applicant’s account, she did not consult with her co-sharers about a mutually convenient time for the inspection, instead, she arranged for the inspection and informed them of the appointment. We consider without any prior warning, it is unsurprising that they had other pre-arranged commitments.[66]The Respondent and Alin both complain that the Applicant entered their rooms without their permission. The Respondent states that they became so concerned that they both installed cameras, which captured her in their rooms. We accept their evidence on this point, which corroborates each others. We note also that the Applicant accepts that during the Council inspection she allowed the Respondent’s and Alin’s rooms to be inspected, even though they had not authorised this. We therefore consider it is more likely than not that she would enter their rooms without their permission as alleged.[67]The Respondent states that Alin moved out of the Property on 15th March 2025, and she moved out on 15th July 2025. The Issues for the Tribunal[68]In light of the above, the issues for the Tribunal to determine are as follows:68.1 Whether the Respondent committed an offence under section 72(1) as a result of the following:(i) being in control of or managing the Property;(ii) the Property being an HMO;(iii) Whether a licence was required for the Property; and(iv) If so, whether there was a licence for the Property.68.2 If the elements of the offence at paragraphs 68.1(i) to 68.1(iv) above are proved beyond reasonable doubt, 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? 1368.3 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.68.4 Whether the Respondent had been responsible for the cost of any utilities at the Property.68.5 The severity of the offence.68.6 Any relevant conduct of the Respondent, her financial circumstances, whether she has any previous convictions of a relevant offence, and the conduct of Applicant 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[69]The Tribunal reached its decision after considering the Applicant’s oral evidence and the parties’ written evidence, including documents referred to in that evidence, and taking into account its assessment of the evidence[70]As appropriate, and where relevant to the Tribunal’s decision the evidence is referred to in the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision.[71]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.[72]The relevant legal provisions are set out in the Appendix to this decision. The offence under section 72(1) Housing Act 2004[73]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 74 to 88 below. Control of or Managing the Property[74]We find that the Respondent was in control of the Property as defined by section 263(1), which states a person is in control of premises where they receive the rack-rent either directly or indirectly.[75]We also 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 rent either directly, or indirectly through an agent. 14[76]The Respondent is the tenant of the Property, and therefore a lessee. She also received rent payments directly from the Applicant. Whether the Property is an HMO[77]We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Property was an HMO. That is because the local authority inspected the Property on 20th February 2025 when the occupants were the Applicant, the Respondent and Alin. The following day, the local authority e-mailed the Applicant stating that, because the Applicant was due to vacate the following day, no enforcement action would be taken. But if it received “another report of HMO use and …evidence of three or more unrelated people in occupation at the same time …” enforcement action could be taken. This demonstrates occupation of the Property by three separate households is treated as “HMO use”.[78]Additionally, when considered with the matters set out at paragraph 81 to 82 below, we conclude that when the Property was occupied by the Applicant, the Respondent and Alin, it was an HMO. They were occupying it as their only or main residence. Was a Licence Required[79]Having found the Property was an HMO, we also find that the Property required a licence under section 61.[80]That is because, firstly, neither exemption at subsection 61(1)(a) or subsection 61(1)(b) applies.[81]That the Property requires an HMO licence is also supported by the fact that in its e-mail sent on 28th January 2025, the local authority considered that, subject to completing its investigation, the Property required a HMO licence. Then, following its inspection on 10th March 2025, the local authority e-mailed the Applicant stating that because there were now two occupiers, no enforcement action would be taken, but such action would be taken if there was evidence of HMO use, namely three or more unrelated individuals were to occupy the Property.[82]Therefore, as the Property was occupied by the Applicant, the Respondent and Alin, for a period of time, the local authority’s correspondence establishes that a HMO licence would have been required during that period.[83]In these applications, an Applicant typically provides information setting out the date the additional licensing scheme is affected, the parts of the borough and the types of properties it applies to. Although that information is not available in this case, we nonetheless consider there is sufficient evidence based on the local authority’s e-mails to satisfy the higher standard of proof to establish the Property required an HMO licence when occupied by three separate households. We remind ourselves that the 15 burden is beyond reasonable doubt, and it does not require us to be satisfied beyond any doubt at all (see paragraph 46 of Opara v Olasemo [2020] UKUT 96 (LC)).[84]Because we have not been provided with the specific dates that the additional licensing scheme is effective, we have taken the 28th January 2025 to be the start of the period of the offence. That is the date when the local authority stated a licence was required, albeit at that stage it was subject to an investigation. But when the investigation was complete, the local authority confirmed its view that a licence was required when the Property is occupied by three unrelated individuals.[85]It may be that the additional licensing scheme was operational earlier, but when we asked the Applicant the dates the additional licensing scheme was effective, she did not know. Therefore, absent any or any adequate evidence that the additional scheme was effective prior to 28th January 2025, we take that as the starting point of the offence.[86]The period of this offence ended when the Applicant vacated the Property, which was on 21st February 2025. Whether there was a licence for the Property[87]It is common ground between the parties that the Property did not have a licence. The Respondent’s position, as set out in her witness statement, is that the Property did not have a licence because she was unaware one was required, particularly as Hounslow inspected the Property in 2022, and did not inform her a licence was required. This is the main evidence that there was no additional HMO licence.[88]This is supported by Hounslow’s e-mail sent on 10th March 2025 which indicates enforcement action will be taken if the Property is let to three separate households at the same time. Such action would be unnecessary if the Property already had an additional HMO licence. Reasonable Excuse[89]We have considered whether any of the points raised by the Respondent may amount to a reasonable excuse. Although we accept the Respondent’s written evidence that she was unaware of the need to obtain a licence, and so did not deliberately breach the licensing requirements, we do not consider that amount to a reasonable excuse. In our judgment, it is incumbent on anyone who rents out property to ensure that they are aware of their legal obligations. Ignorance of legal obligations is not a defence.[90]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. 16[91]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[92]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:92.1 ascertain the whole of the rent for the relevant period;92.2 subtract any element of that sum that represents payment by the landlord for utilities that only benefited the tenant/licencee;92.3 consider how serious this offence was, both compared to other types of offences in respect of which a rent repayment order may be made and compared to other examples of the same type of offence; and;92.4 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.[93]We have adopted the approach recommended in Acheampong v Roman and others, as set out below.[94]Therefore, in accordance with sections 44(2) and 44(3), an RRO may only be made where it relates to rent paid during the period of the offence, in respect of the period during which the offence was committed. The Applicant’s bank print-outs show that she made one payment during this period. That payment was for £480 on 31st January 2025.[95]Taking into account that £400 of the £480 paid on 28th January 2025 would have been rent, and that the period of the award is 28th January 2025 to 21st February 2025, the amount paid as rent needs to be apportioned to cover the period of the offence. We calculate that £400 x 12 months and divided by 365 days means the RRO is calculated at the daily rate of £13.15. Multiplied by the 25 day period of the offence, we calculate that the whole of the rent was £328.75.[96]These calculations are based on the monthly rent of £400 exclusive of bills, so no further reductions for utilities are required. 17[97]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.[98]Regarding the seriousness of the offence in this application, namely 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. We consider it is less serious than managing a property without a mandatory HMO licence, and in the circumstances of this case, we consider the severity is similar to managing a property without a selective licence.[99]We consider this offence was also committed out of ignorance rather than due to wilful evasion of the additional licensing scheme. That is because we accept Hounslow inspected the Property in 2022, authorised the Respondent to provide accommodation through its Homes for Ukraine Scheme, which we find led her to (mistakenly) believe she could lawfully let a room to the Applicant.[100]Aside from one exception, we find there to be no misconduct by the Respondent that would justify increasing the amount awarded. We find that she was transparent throughout about the arrangement, namely that she rented the Property from someone else. There was no obligation on the Respondent to initially provide her landlord’s details to the Applicant, but when the Applicant requested these, she provided them. Although Sussexgate Limited does not appear on the title documents, a screenshot included in the Respondent’s witness statement shows she has made payments to Sussexgate Limited. This supports the Respondent’s account, and it does not necessarily follow that Sussexgate’s interest would be recorded by Land Registry.[101]Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, we do not consider she has taken advantage of or manipulated the Applicant: in particular, the rent charged for the accommodation provided seems reasonable.[102]We also do not find the lodger agreement to be a sham: it accurately reflects the Applicant’s status. It follows there was no requirement to provide an EPC or gas safety certificate.[103]As to whether the boiler was serviced, the Applicant claims it was not serviced during her occupancy, Alin states it was regularly serviced. We find it more likely than not that the boiler was serviced but that the Applicant was simply unaware of this. One reason is we find it unlikely that Hounslow would have authorised the Property for the Homes for Ukraine Scheme unless the boiler was serviced. Therefore, if it was regularly serviced previously, we see no reason why that would cease, which supports Alin’s contention. 18[104]As previously stated, we find the Respondent that by giving the Applicant two months’ notice to vacate the Property, she provided more notice than she was contractually obliged to. She did not need to establish grounds for evicting the Applicant.[105]The written exchanges between the Applicant and the Respondent are cordial, although the Applicant refers to feeling excluded by the Respondent, and to a lesser degree, Alin. However, we do not consider personal interactions of this nature warrant adjusting the amount awarded.[106]While the Applicant is a non-smoker and seemingly found the Respondent and Alin smoking in the Property displeasing, they were not in breach of any agreement or arrangement by doing so. As to the noise and air pollution emanating from nearby premises, the Respondent is not liable for this.[107]Therefore, in most aspects, we find no basis for criticising the Respondent’s conduct. However, that is except for the condition of the Property, which we find had some defects, such as mould and condensation, as shown in the Applicant’s photographs. We consider its more likely than not that the Respondent would have known about this, because the mould is visible. We also consider it more likely than not that she would have been aware of that some furniture was broken at the start of the Applicant’s occupation. That is because the Applicant borrowed a drill from her to fix the furniture. Furthermore, the Respondent noticed broken furniture after the Applicant vacated, so it’s likely she would have noticed broken furniture before she took up occupation.[108]We find the Applicant’s conduct was mostly appropriate. She paid her rent, contributed to the utilities, sometimes making a contribution even when the Respondent had not requested this. We consider it unlikely that any broken furniture left in her room after she vacated was due to the Applicant’s neglect or misuse, but is more likely to be due to the general worn condition of the furniture when she moved in. However, she informed us that when Hounslow council visited on 20th February 2025 she showed them the Respondent’s and Alin’s rooms, doing so without obtaining their prior permission. We consider this to be an unacceptable invasion of their privacy, irrespective of whether it happened once or multiple times, but on balance, we consider it’s more likely to be that latter.[109]Having regard to the total rent for the relevant period, the severity of the offence and the deductions that we consider should be made in light of factors to which we must have regard under section 44(4) of the 2016 Act, we make a rent repayment order against the Respondent in the total sum of £164.37, which represents 50% of the rent paid by the Applicant during the relevant period. 19[110]We arrived at this sum as follows:110.1 We note that there is some misconduct on both sides in this case when considering the condition of the Property and the Applicant entering the other rooms without permission. As to mitigation, the Respondent let out rooms to meet the cost of renting her home, and so is not a professional landlady. The breach of licensing requirements was not deliberate. It also seems the breach was not long term, because it does not seem a licence was required when Hounslow inspected the Property in 2022. We do not have any information about the Respondent’s financial circumstances, so we cannot take that into account when assessing the award. Nor do we have we been provided with evidence that she any previous convictions for a similar offence. Therefore, in light of the above, an award of 50% is appropriate.110.2 We have also 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. 110.2 From this, we consider 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…”. We also consider the award made by the Deputy President in Newell v Abbott is relevant, which was dealt with at paragraph 62 of the Upper Tribunal’s decision as follows: Nor has Mr Newell provided evidence of his financial circumstances. On that basis, bearing in mind that the offence was committed by the landlord of a single property and was the result of inadvertence, or lack of attention, rather than being deliberate, and that the accommodation provided was generally of a good standard which attracted long term residents and which the respondents were disappointed to leave, the appropriate order is for the repayment of 60% of the rent received. Had the offence been committed for a much shorter period the penalty I would have imposed would have been equal 20 to 50% of the rent, but the effective operation of selective licensing schemes depends on landlords keeping themselves properly informed and a prolonged failure to obtain a licence therefore merits a higher penalty. 110.4 The facts of Newell v Abbott are not identical. But we consider it nonetheless provides some useful guidance because it is a case of inadvertent breach, and the Respondent is not a professional landlady. 110.5 We consider the facts of that case are comparable to the present case. In particular, the Respondent, like Mr Newell, was the landlord of a single property who had inadvertently breached licensing requirements, and provided accommodation of a good standard. Against that background, we consider an award of 50% is appropriate. Although there were defects at the Property so it cannot be described as of a good standard, there was no misconduct in Newell v Abbott, but we have found there to be misconduct in this case. 110.6 Having reached that view, we cross checked it with the actual award made in Newell v Abbott. We note an award was made of 60% in that case, but the Deputy President stated a penalty of 50% would have been imposed if the failure to obtain a licence had been over a shorter period. We are also satisfied that an award at 50% meets the requirements of consistency, as commended by the Deputy President. 111 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. Name: Judge Tueje Date: 26th January 2026 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. 21 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). 22 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. 23 (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. 24 (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. 25 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.