Judge S. McKeownMr. A. Fonka MCIEH CEnvH MScMs. Donnelly-Jackson – Justice for Tenants for the ApplicantIn Person Application for a Rent Repayment for the RespondentVenue 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LRDate 19 September 2025Property: 36 Corker Walk, London, N7 7RH (1) Salome Wagaine-TwabweType of application: Order, pursuant to sections 40, 41, 43 & 44 Housing and Planning Act 2016
DECISION
Decision of the Tribunal(1) The Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent landlord committed an offence under Section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 2(2) The Tribunal has determined that it is appropriate to make a rent repayment order.(3) The Tribunal makes a rent repayment order in favour of the Applicants against the Respondents, in the sum of £15,015 (to be apportioned as set out below), to be paid within 28 days of the date of this decision: (i) The First Applicant - £4,704; (ii) The Second Applicant - £5,281.50; (iii) The Third Applicant - £5,029.50.(4) The Tribunal determines that the Respondent shall pay the Applicants an additional £337 as reimbursement of Tribunal fees to be paid within 28 days of the date of this decision. Introduction[1]This is a decision on an application for a rent repayment order under section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”). Application and Background[2]By an application dated 5 or 6 December 2024 (A47) the Applicants apply for a rent repayment order. The application is brought on the ground that the Respondent committed an offence of having control or management of an unlicensed House in Multiple Occupation (“HMO”) for failing to have an additional HMO licence (“licence”) for 36 Corker Walk, London, N7 7RH (“the Property”), an offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”).[3]The Property is a two-storey, three-bedroom maisonette flat with a share kitchen and bathrooms.[4]It is alleged that the Property was situated in an additional licensing area designated by the LB of Islington, which came into force on 1 February 2021 and that the Property was required to be licensed: it was a HMO under s.254 Housing Act 2004. The Applicants were the tenants of the Property and so, during the period of 2 January 2021-28 February 2024, it was occupied by at least three people living in two or more separate households and occupying the Property as their main residence. It is said that all of the Applicants lived at the Property during that period as follows: 3(a) First Applicant – 2 January 2021-28 February 2024 (Room 3);(b) Second Applicant – 14 July 2020-28 February 2024 (Room 1);(c) Third Applicant – 1 March 2021-28 February 2024 (having replaced another person) (Room 2).[5]It is alleged that no application for a licence was made at the material time and in fact no application had been made at the time of the applicant (A51, A102-104).[6]The Applicants seek a RRO for the period 1 January 2023-31 December 2023, in the sum of £21,450.[7]Further details of the application are set out in the Applicant’s Statement of Case (A2) and in a “Statement of Reasons” (A11).[8]The Applicants confirm that none of them are related by blood and none of them were in a romantic relationship (A22, A31).[9]The Respondent’s position is set out in a statement (R1). In summary, this states:(a) The application relates to a period during which the Respondent was not aware that the Premises required a licence;(b) The Respondent received no correspondence, notice of invitation to participate in consultation or to register to a licence, and if he had, he would have applied;(c) The premises exceeds LB of Islington’s Housing Act Standards for houses in multiple occupation licence requirements;(d) At the time of the consultation and licensing period, the Respondent was experiencing exceptional personal hardship;(e) The consultation concluded at a time when the nation was pre-occupied with public health, safety and survival due to the outbreak of Covid-19 and staying informed about administrative changes was impossible;(f) The Respondent is a small-scale, single-property landlord with no history of non-compliance.[10]The Respondent has also provided a Case Dispute Consultation (CDC1). It states, among other things: 4(a) The Respondent is the registered landlord of the Premises;(b) The Respondent is registered with LB of Islington under the subletting registration scheme, which confirmed it had knowledge of his identity and contact details, but he was not consulted directly about the licensing scheme. The local authority admits it did not send consultation letters (CDC5). This was in breach of s.80(9) Housing Act 2004 and Courts have held that failing to comply with the consultation requirements renders the licensing designation unlawful and of no effect: R (Peat & Ors) v Hyndburn BC [2011] EWHC 1739 (Admin); R (Regas & Ors) v LB of Enfield [2014] EWHC 4173 (Admin);(c) The failure to consult caused significant prejudice to the Respondent, depriving him of the opportunity to understand and challenge the proposed scheme, to comply with licence requirements and engage in any meaningful dialogue to address or mitigate licensing conditions, and it undermines the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness;(d) There was no requirement to have a licence.[11]The Respondent has also provided a document entitled “Dispute Statement Time”. This states, among other things:(a) From 1 December 2023, there were no more than two people living at the Premises, the application was received on 20 December 2024 and was outside the 12-month period of the alleged offence;(b) The application was submitted 20 days outside the statutory time limit (s.41(2)(b) Housing and Planning Act 2016);(c) The First Applicant moved out of the Premises at the start of December 2023;(d) The Premises does not require a licence;(e) The Respondent has been living at the Premises from 28 February 2024.[12]The Applicant’s Reply is, in summary:(a) There is no reasonable excuse defence: Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKUT 156 (TCC); 5(b) The Applicant must establish a reasonable excuse for managing and controlling a HMO without a licence rather than an excuse for not applying for one: Thurrock Council v Daoudi [2020] UKUT 209 (LC);(c) A landlord is expected to know their legal obligations: I R Management Services Ltd v Salford CC [2020] UKUT 81 (LC);(d) Reliance is placed on Aytan v Moore [2022] UKUT 027 (LC), AA v Rodriguez & Ors [2021] UKUT 0274 (LC) and Chan v Bilkhu & Anor [2020] UKUT 0289 (LC);(e) The email from the local authority makes clear that landlords have a duty to familiarise themselves with legislation surrounding property licensing;(f) The Respondent does not explain why the Property did not have a licence as from 1 February 2021;(g) Covid 19 lockdowns ended in March 2021;(h) There is some inconsistency in what the Respondent says about his personal circumstances;(i) The consultation requirements are set out in s.56(3)(a). The Respondent has not provided evidence that Regulation 9 of The Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006 were not complied with;(j) Reliance is placed on a local authority report, Designation of Areas for Additional Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Selective Property Licensing;(k) There were multiple modes by which the local authority sought to make landlords aware of the consultation. The Applicants rely on R v LB of Brent ex p. Gunning (1985) and submits that there is no evidence that the principles set out therein were breached;(l) The scheme was publicised as required by Reg. 9;(m) Challenge to a defective consultation is by judicial review, but as per s.59 Housing Act 2004, landlords do not need to be personally notified of a scheme;(n) In LDC (Ferry Lane) v Garro & Ors [2024] UKUT 40 (LC) the Tribunal was “unimpressed by this defence”;(o) The First Applicant did give notice in December 2023 but she did not move out until 6 28 February 2024 and her last rent payment was on 28 January 2024;(p) The Tribunal received the application on 20 December 2024, which was within the time limit;(q) No credible evidence was provided for the estimate of works said to be needed to the Property;(r) The Applicants deny the allegations made against them;(s) Submissions are made about the Respondent’s financial circumstances.[13]There is a further witness statement from the First Applicant (AR14).[14]On 11 April 2025 (A39) the Tribunal issued directions for the determination of the application, providing for the parties to provide details of their cases and the preparation of a hearing bundle.[15]On 25 July 2025 the Tribunal issued amended directions, giving amended dates for the Respondent’s bundle and the Applicant’s reply. Documentation[16]The Applicant has provided a bundle of documents referred to as “Statement of Case” comprising a total of 154 pages (references to which will be prefixed by “A__”). This includes witness statements from the Second Applicant (A17), the Third Applicant (A27) and the First Applicant (A35). There is also a Reply bundle of 364 pages (refers to which will be prefixed by “AR__”).[17]The Respondent provided a bundle to the Tribunal comprising 85 pages (references to which will be prefixed by “R__”). He has also provided the Case Dispute Consultation (references to which will be prefixed by “CDC__”) as well as a document entitled “Dispute Statement Time” (references to which will be prefixed by “DST__”).[18]On 11 September 2025, the Respondent sent an email to the Tribunal attaching documentation about LB of Islington’s licensing scheme for additional licences and stating that the hire doors at the Property are over and above the requirements set out therein.[19]A response was received from the Applicant as follows: The Applicants raised issues of fire safety in their Statement of Case. The Respondent had provided the local authority’s guidance on fire safety requirements for HMO’s in his bundle and had had ample opportunity to submit the document and it should not be admitted. In any event, the document 7 adds nothing to the Respondent’s case as he does not state that he relied on it in making decisions about the level of fire safety measures.[20]The Tribunal has had regard primarily to the documents to which it was referred during the hearing. The Hearing[21]The Applicants were represented by Ms. Fleur Donnelly-Jackson from Justice for Tenants. The Respondent represented himself (but had his cousin in attendance for support).[22]At the start, the Respondent raised the issue of whether the application was issued in time. The Tribunal explained that it needed to hear evidence before it could make a decision on that issue (as it was premised on a factual issue – when the First Applicant left the Property) and so it proposed to hear all the evidence. It was also explained that it will not issue a decision on the day and if it determined that the application was made in time, it would need to have the evidence to go on to consider the other issues.[23]The First Applicant gave evidence. She gave her new address as she said that she had moved since preparing her witness statement.[24]She said that each of the three had responsibility for paying for at least one of the bills. She had British Gas and they had a shared running tab on Monzo and they would “divvy”. The Second Applicant paid Council Tax and the Third Applicant paid for electricity. She was paying the gas bill from March 2021 until she left in February 2024. She confirmed that none of the utilities were included in the rent. She confirmed that none of the Applicants were in receipt of Housing Benefit or Universal Credit at any time.[25]She was asked about her relationship with her neighbour. She said she first met her in first couple of months and they had a good relationship. One of last times they spoke was December 2024, the neighbour knocked on the door and handed her Christmas cards and some chocolates. The First Applicant said they would be leaving at the end of February. The neighbour called her Lilian, and she would often mix them up. The First Applicant didn’t think to correct her as she had been nice and had given her a Christmas present.[26]She was asked about her living arrangements in December 2023-January 2024. She said she continued living at the Property in December 2023 and only moved out in February 2024. In autumn 2023 she had tried to move out, but the prospective landlord was nervous, so 8 she stayed until February 2024. She found a new place to live in January 2024. She moved in to her new address in February 2024 but there had been a two-week period when she was moving things about and had the keys.[27]She was asked if property visits were conducted. She said they were not. A couple of times people had come to fix things, but there was no inventory at beginning of the tenancy and no inspections. One time, at the start of the tenancy, before the Third Applicant moved in, when the Respondent came in and looked informally at the Property, he commented on how good the balcony was looking but there was no formal inspection process.[28]She said that she did not receive the deposit back at the end of the tenancy and it was only then that she discovered it had not been protected. She said that they thought they would get it back at the end of the tenancy, but that did not happen and they never ever received it. She had confirmation from the Respondent that it was not protected. He said the reason was that it was to do with the state of the property at the end of the tenancy. The Applicant asked him if it was protected so they could go through the dispute process. The Respondent then suggested protecting it at that time, but the Applicant did not feel comfortable, as they had given it 3 years earlier.[29]She was taken to A37. She said that she could not remember what contact there was with the local authority or what interaction there was with the Respondent. She said the leak was in the Third Applicant’s room and she had handled a lot of it. She said it remained a persistent issue, as were the mice. The issues were not handled sufficiently.[30]She was then asked questions by the Respondent as follows.[31]She confirmed that all of the Applicants had moved out on the same date, i.e. 28 February 2024. She was taken to the documents about the Oyster card (AR33 on) and she confirmed it was hers and no one else used it. She was asked about a period of time that she was in Amsterdam and used of the Oyster card. It was eventually clarified (and she showed her Eurostar tickets to the Respondent and the Tribunal) that she travelled from the Property to St. Pancras to get the Eurostar on the morning of 25 January 2024, and she returned to St. Pancras on the evening of 27 January 2025 and then went to the cinema with friends. She said that she may have paid in advance for a ticket to Anne Frank’s House.[32]She was asked about her move from the Property. She confirmed that she left on 28 February 2024 and she still had possessions at the Property until the end. She said it took her a while to move out. From 9 February 2024-29 February 2024 she confirmed that she was staying at her “new property” but that she still had possessions at the Property, she still had he keys, her post was still delivered there, she was still registered with a 9 GP there, she still had responsibilities, she was still paying bills. She was still moving things out until the last day.[33]She was taken to the removal invoice (AR62) which is dated 9 February 2024. She confirmed that the removal company had taken most of her things, but she had left books and cooking equipment at the Property.[34]She confirmed that she had purchased a mattress in January, which stayed rolled up in the living room of the Property and she did not use it at the Property.[35]She was taken to AR45. She said that she started to pay “rent” for her new property in February 2024, but she would have had to pay a security deposit before moving in, probably in January 2024. She had a regular direct debit from February 2024. The date which the agreement states she moved in was 9 February 2024. She was taken to AR85 and she said that she first paid “rent” in respect of the other property on 15 January 2024. She was taken to DST16 and she said that no. 5 was payment of the security deposit, no. 6 would have been paying the licence fee in advance. She then had a direct debit for the 15th of the month. She was asked why she was paying rent for a place she was not living in. She said that she had secured the place in January and she had to pay a security deposit and a month in advance. It was put to her that it was not in her contract that she had to pay a month in advance.[36]She said that from 9 February 2024 she was staying between both addresses but then accepted that from that time, she was living at the other address. She confirmed that she was sleeping in East Dulwich from 11 February 2024. She paid the licence fee in advance (AR54, clause 4.1) on 15 January and then paid the security payment. The contract started on 9 February 2024. She confirmed that she had paid a holding deposit on 27 September 2023.[37]She confirmed that had sent the message on 10 October 2023 (DST1) and that she had been looking to move out, she did think that she would be moving out but it did not happen: the letting fell through as the landlord had concerns about her income. The Respondent put to her that they had had a phone call on the same day, and she said that they had had a phone within a couple of days of the message. She was asked again about the message and what she meant by “sorry to not be in touch sooner”. She said that she wanted to give everyone more time, she didn’t think she had to give 2m notice at that time. It was put to her that during their conversation, she said that she would be staying with her mother for the festive period and until she found a place to live. She denied this and explained that she did not have a good relationship with her mother and so that discussion had never happened.[38]She was taken to DST10 and she said that she believed that when they had the conversation, the neighbour thought she was the Third 10 Applicant. The First Applicant told her she was staying in the Property over Christmas on her own, she had no reason to move because of my job, so all three sentences were incorrect. The Third Applicant spent Christmas with her family. The “statement” by the neighbour was not an accurate reflection of the conversation and she did not say that the Third Applicant would be at the Property by herself. The Tribunal asked the First Applicant to confirm who was at the Property in December 2023. The First Applicant said that it was all three Applicants, but the First Applicant was the only person there over Christmas. The Second Applicant visited her family for Christmas.[39]She was referred to para. 4 at DST3 and the fact that she was referred to as a “previous tenant” and she was asked to explain that. She said that she thought that Lowe had a standard form, her name was in bold and they simply “plugged in” the name of the person in respect of whom they were trying to get a reference, she said there were no gender specific pronouns. She said that when she got the licence agreement for her new property, her address was the Property.[40]She accepted that she had a good relationship with the neighbour in that they would say hello to each other, but she said that the neighbour did mix the Applicants up. She was taken to AR32 and it was put to her that there was a discussion with the neighbour about them moving out, which the First Applicant accepted but she said that it was referring to moving out at the end of February 2024. She said that the neighbour’s recollection of the conversation was different to hers.[41]The First Applicant confirmed that she had not paid rent directly to the Respondent, she had always transferred it to the Second Applicant. It was put to her that the Respondent was never involved in a discussion about how much each Applicant would pay per room. She said that they were joint tenants, so the rent was sent to the Respondent in a “block”. She agreed that the rent was “one sum” for the whole flat and the tenancy agreement was for the flat as a whole. She agreed that the rent was due regardless of how many were living there.[42]She stated that in the autumn and winter the boiler would stop, they would have to push at it and use a fire-lighter operator. She accepted that she did not raise this issue with the Respondent and there was nothing in the documents to show it was raised with him.[43]She accepted that the Respondent had raised issues with them about the condition of the Property but she said that the Applicants did not agree with them. The Respondent asked her if there were any issues which he had not dealt with, and the First Applicant said there was a leak in the Third Applicant’s bedroom and issues with the skirting board. The First Applicant agreed that the leak was external. It was put to her that the only way to fix it was if the local authority put up scaffolding. Her response was that she could not remember, but that it “could be”. 11[44]She was asked who had put graffiti on the flower pots on the balcony. She said that she would not characterise it as graffiti, but accepted there was a painting of flowers across the planters, and that it was done by the Applicants. She accepted that she did not think that there was authorisation but said that she was not involved in the process.[45]She was asked who had authorised the Applicants to hang clothes in the Property, and the Respondent said that the tenancy agreement says that the tenants needed to ventilate the flat and that they could not dry clothes inside. She said that there was a pulley in the hallway to the top floor when the Respondent had visited in 2021, that he had thought it was “smart” that it had been installed by previous tenants and that she had bought a dehumidifier to sit underneath it. She was asked if she had noticed any ventilation or humidity issues and she said nothing over and above anything normal, the dehumidifier was to speed up the process and she said that the Respondent knew of the presence of the pulley.[46]She was taken to R8 and it was put to her that the photographs showed wallpaper peeling, signs of mould, the effects of the Property not being ventilated and that the cause of condensation was wet clothing. The First Applicant said that she was not sure whether any peeling wallpaper had predated the Applicants, there was no inventory or photographs agreed. She said that she was not sure when it began. As to the rest, she accepted there was some mould shown on R8 but the Applicants did not have a record of what the Property was like before they had moved in, so she would not say it was the Applicants. It was put to her that in three years, the Applicants would have added to the state of the Property, and she said that it was impossible to judge to what extent that would be. It was suggested to her that it was unlikely that there was mould present for three years and it would not be raised with the Respondent. She said that she did not know what it looked like at beginning. It was put to her that it was not raised as an issue with the Respondent. She said that when they did raise things, such as the sink in January 2024, which was an urgent issue, it took a while for the Respondent to deal with it, there had been a couple of incidents before that, and their faith in the process was not high. She was asked if she believed there was mould there for three years, why she would not have raised it. She said that she did not know when the mould was from. She said that if there was mould in the bathroom she would have cleared it, as this would be part of the tenants’ general maintenance. She said that the photographs at R8 were of the hallway. It was put to her that it was the Second Applicant’s bedroom and she was rarely in there.[47]The First Applicant accepted that they had hung pictures on the walls. She was asked about authorisation and she said that when the Respondent had visited in January 2021, there were already pictures on the wall and he took no issue with it. 12[48]The Tribunal asked her if the Applicants had hung pictures on hooks already in place or whether they had put hooks in. She said that it may have been a combination of both.[49]It was put to her that over three years, the drying of wet clothes would have had an effect, but she did not agree with this.[50]She confirmed that one of the photographs at R9 was the Third Applicant’s bedroom.[51]She asked about if she agreed that R10 showed raised floorboards, and she said that she could just about see that. She said that she did not recall them changing, and she thought it pre-dated the Applicants moving in. She was asked if she had not thought to mention it to the Respondent. She said that she did not think it had changed and he had seen it on his visit in January 2021.[52]It was put to her that when they moved out, the Property was not habitable. She disagreed and said that they had lived in it for three years.[53]The Respondent said that after the Applicants had moved out, he had to change the floorboards, replace the carpets, take off the wallpaper, render, change the kitchen. She said that she didn’t know. It was put to her that all these works were justified but she did not agree that all of them needed doing. She was asked which works did need doing. She said the mould in the corner could have been cleaned. The Respondent put to her that there would be issues with “colouring” to the wallpaper once the pictures were removed and so painting was needed. She said “okay” but then said that one way to deal with it would be wash the walls down and she was not sure the works were necessary. It was put to her that removal of the wallpaper and painting was justified as the wallpaper was peeling off. She said that she guessed it would be, if the wallpaper was peeling, but she said that she did not remember that. She accepted that some of the works were justified. When asked which ones were not, she said that she would struggle to answer that question as it implied that it was all the responsibility of the Applicants. She said that the flooring was like that when they had moved in and so works in that regard were not their responsibility. She said that she had focused on finding evidence showing that she had not moved out in December 2023 as that was the substantive issue she had to respond to. She said that they had not taken that many photographs of the floor.[54]It was put to her that the doors were fire doors. She said they were if that could be proved. She confirmed that they did not close automatically, and the living room door squeaked. The Respondent said that there was a difference between the local authority guidance for large HMO’s and those subject to additional and selective licensing schemes. The First Applicant said that she did not recall any issues with the fire alarm. 13 There were fire alarms but she could not recall if they were mains connected or had wires.[55]The First Applicant said that she thought she recalled the fuse blowing in November 2022.[56]In view of the time at this point, the Tribunal then said that the Second and Third Applicants would confirm their witness statements and then any questions from the Respondent could be addressed to either or both. In view of some issues arising in the First Applicant’s evidence, the Ms. Donnelly-Jackson was permitted to ask some questions of the Second Applicant.[57]The Second Applicant confirmed that she is a freelance theatre director and she confirmed her signature at A22. She was taken to AR83, AR85, AR86 and said that these were photographs taken by the previous tenants (Ms. Taylor, Ms. Heatley, Ms. O’Cathain) at the end of 2019, AR83 was a photograph of the ceiling of the bathroom, AR85 was a photograph of the kitchen and AR86 showed the peeling wallpaper and mould at the corner.[58]The Second Applicant was asked about the living arrangements in December 2023. She said that all three of them lived at the Property. She said that her family lives in Australia and she returned there during December 2023 to spend Christmas with them, but she did not have dates to hand. The Third Applicant spent the festive period with her family in Stevenage and the First Applicant was alone in the property. The Second Applicant said that when she returned to the Property after Christmas, the other two were there.[59]The Third Applicant gave her new address as she said that she had moved since preparing her witness statement. She confirmed her signature at A31.[60]The Respondent then asked questions.[61]He took the Second and Third Applicants to AR85 and AR86. He asked them if, when they lived at the Property, the condition of the bathroom ceiling and the kitchen were as shown. The Second Applicant said that as could be seen from the other photographs, it was not and she had included the photographs as there was an overlap, and to show the condition of the Property when her first two co-tenants moved in. She said that they had looked after the Property and it did not look like that when they left. She said that AR87 showed that the peeling wallpaper pre-dated her moving in.[62]It was put to her that these were the only photographs without dates, so they could have been taken at any time. She conceded that they had no 14 dates, and said that the photographs had been sen t to her by Ms. Taylor and Ms. Heatley. She said that the photographs were on her computer and there was no easy way to include the dates. She was asked if the conditions as shown on AR87 had stayed that way and she said that it had and that that was her bedroom. She said that she had no other comments on the photographs. It was put to her that the photographs could have been taken before the previous tenants moved in. She said that potentially they could have been but she had asked Ms. Heatley and Ms. Taylor if they had pictures of the Property when they moved in and they had sent her these.[63]The Second Applicant confirmed that she moved in on 14 July 2020 and Ms. Taylor and Ms. Heatley had moved in in October 2019. She was asked about the condition of the Property when she moved in. She said that the kitchen had been changed and the mould on the bathroom ceiling had been cleaned up when she moved in. AR87 showed different but that photograph was the closest to when she moved in. The Respondent put to her that including the photographs in the bundle was misleading. She said that they were relevant to the discussion around the peeling wallpaper and the mould in corner of bedroom and they showed the condition of that room pre-dated her moving in. She confirmed that R5 showed brown kitchen units and that the kitchen had been changed in about October 2019. She was taken to R6 and it was put to her that the photographs had been taken at the end of October 2019 and the bathroom was new. She said that she could see that the shower was new and she confirmed that when she moved in, the kitchen had been changed and works had been done to the ceiling of the bathroom.[64]The Second and Third Applicants were taken to in AR81-82 and asked about the deductions/reimbursement. She said that the Respondent reimbursed them (out of the rent) for certain things like the pulley and shelves that were installed. She was asked about what the reimbursement was said to be for and the Respondent suggested that he had been told simply that the tenants needed something to dry their clothes on, not that it was the pulley. The Second Applicant said that Ms. Taylor was the primary tenant and the conversation pre-dated the Second Applicant’s time in the Property, but she was there for the reimbursement. She said that WhatsApp is an imperfect forum, but that there were conversations, both via WhatsApp and in person, with Ms. Taylor and Ms. Heatley and the reimbursement was for the shelves and the pulley. The conversations were before the Second Applicant’s time and she had not paid for them so there were no deductions from her rent. She did clarify that everyone was aware that the drying system was a pulley system and that she was under the impression that everyone (including the Respondent) knew it was a pulley system. She did not know if the pulley was something bought or created and built.[65]The Second Applicant was asked again whether the works done by the Respondent were justified. She said it was not their decision but the Property was habitable so she didn’t know if she could see the works as 15 justified. She was asked if she had an issue with the amount and the expenses and she said that all of it happened after they had moved out, and that it didn’t really have anything to do with her.[66]The Second and Third Applicant confirmed that all three Applicants moved out on 28 February 2024. They confirmed that they were still paying bills, Council Tax, electricity until 28 February 2025. The Second Applicant said that in the last few days of February 2024, all three of the Applicants were in the Property, they hired a steam cleaner to do the carpets, and on 28 February 2024, the Second Applicant collected they keys, which she handed back. In the previous weeks, they had all communicated with the utility companies: the Second Applicant for Council Tax and water, the Third Applicant for electricity and broadband. They have their “move out” date as 28 February 2024. She said that all three Applicants were paying rent until 28 February 2024, they all had responsibilities for utilities until then, and all three of them retuned their keys on 28 February 2024.[67]They were asked if, in September or October 2023, they were aware that the First Applicant was going to leave the Property. The Second Applicant said that the First Applicant spoke about leaving but, as she had mentioned, it fell through and so she remained at the Property.[68]They were asked about whether the Respondent knew that the First Applicant was going to stay on at the Property. The Second Applicant said that there was a conversation, she believed on 28 November 2023, by telephone, in which the Respondent informed the Applicants that they were going to be “evicted” and he was aware at that time that all three Applicants were at the Property. She said that they all knew the First Applicant was planning to leave and but that it had fallen through. She was asked if the Respondent should have been aware of it, and she said that it was not for her to say.[69]The First Applicant then explained that the move had fallen through on 16 October 2023 and, at that time, she had had major surgery. She said that her main focus was getting her infusion, she said that best practice would have been to have told the Respondent then that she was not moving out.[70]The Tribunal asked whether the Respondent was told at any time that the First Applicant was staying at the Property. The Second Applicant said that she didn’t think that it was explicitly mentioned in the telephone call on 28 November 2023 but she was clear that the three of them were living in the Property.[71]The Respondent then gave evidence. He confirmed that he relied on the Case Dispute Consultation and the Dispute Statement Time. He was then asked questions by Ms. Donnelly-Jackson. He confirmed his signature at CDC 3 and that he understood the need to give a truthful 16 account . He confirmed that he was a director of a company and that he didn’t own any other properties (when the Property was rented out, he was living with his parents). The Property was bought in about 2006 and had been given to him. He was not sure when as it was transferred without his knowledge (as part of the “7-year rule” for inheritance tax) but it was probably in about 2017-2018. He said that his father was ill.[72]He confirmed that he was the Applicants’ landlord and that he had registered with LB of Islington under their sub-letting scheme and that he knew he needed to do that. He said that the local authority had contacted him to let him know. He confirmed the emails at R19-28. He was taken to R22 and asked if he was in the habit of using the local authority’s website to make payments. He said that he did not know how he had made the payment in respect of the registration fee.[73]He said that he had first rented out the property when Ms. O’Cathain moved in. He was taken to R23 and he confirmed that that was in October 2019. He said that the Property had three bedrooms. He was asked if it was always his intention to let it to three tenants. He said that he would have preferred a family, and it was rented as flat share: it was not his intention to rent it “room by room”. He confirmed that he was wholly responsible for the Property as the registered landlord, that he was named as the landlord on the tenancy agreement in 2021.[74]He was asked if the Second Applicant replaced Ms. Heatley as a tenant from 1 March 2021 and he said that he did not know the exact dates, and he could not confirm that. He said that there had never been fewer than three tenants, and there was always someone replacing someone. For a while it was not him doing the replacing and he was satisfied for the tenants to find a replacement tenant.[75]In respect of when the First Applicant left, he confirmed that from 1 December 2024, it was his position that there were no more than two people living there. It was put to him that the First Applicant was still a tenant into January 2024 and that he was in contact with her about repairs in January 2024. He said that it had been established that the First Applicant had never directly told him that she was not moving out. It was put to him that there was a difference between the First Applicant not telling him that she had decided to stay and him knowing that she was still there. He said that he did not know she was still at the Property.[76]He confirmed that the rent was charged and paid as the Applicants asserted, and that the rent excluded utilities. It was put to him that the bills he had provided only dated to after the Applicants had moved out. He said when they had moved out, the builders came in, and during that period he got Council Tax (from 28 February 2024) and things like that sent over. The utilities were soon after 28 February 2024. 17[77]He confirmed that the Applicants were not in rent arrears when they left and that the Applicants paid their rent on time. He said that he had received all of the rent, that the Applicants were good and they were correct in a lot of stuff that they had said.[78]He was taken to DST16 and he confirmed the payment of £580 on 28 January 2024 and that it was the final payment of rent from the First Applicant to the Second Applicant, and it was rent he had received. It was put to him that she had paid rent to 28 February 2024. He said that the First Applicant was paying someone else, not the Respondent. He said that he had a contract for three-bedroom property with one fee, and if one tenant moved out, he still expected the full rent. He said that he received the rent via the Second Applicant. He was referred to DST4 and he confirmed that the keys had been left with a neighbour. He said that this was a text message he received in February 2024. He was referred to R14, para. 10(d), and he was asked if he was happy that this was his response. He said that the electricity certificate was valid for up to 5 years, and before the Second Applicant moved in, the gas certificate was done and given to the tenants who had lived there before. He said that the gas safety certificate was due every year and it had been done by the tenants on several occasions. He was asked where the documents where and he said that he had brought some documents to court. He showed the Tribunal: pages 1-2 (of 4 pages) of a “Domestic Electrical Installation Periodic Inspection Report” dated 10 February 2021; an invoice for installation of 2 smoke and one heat alarm dated 12 November 2022; a Gas Safety Record dated 20 January 2023. He was asked by the Tribunal were the missing pages of the “Domestic Electrical Installation Periodic Inspection Report” were and he said that they were the only pages he had. He was asked if the documents had been shared with the tenants. He said that he had a tenancy agreement with the “others” and the electricity certificates were done during that time. He said that the gas safety certificate was done whilst the Applicants were at the Property and it had been done a few times.[79]The Respondent was asked by the Tribunal if the gas safety certificates had been given to the tenants. He said that they were given to Ms. O’Cathain “back then”. He confirmed that they were not given to the Applicants. He said that the Applicants were not given a How to Rent guide. He was asked whether the deposit was placed in a scheme and he said that the Applicants had not paid a deposit. He was taken to AR91 and he confirmed that this did talk about a deposit. The Tribunal asked him why he refers to a deposit if the Applicants did not pay a deposit. He said that deposits were given but not within the tenancy agreement. He confirmed that the Applicants did pay a deposit (he said that they had not paid a deposit for the tenancy agreement). The Tribunal asked him how much the deposit was that was paid, he said he could not remember but it was similar to the amounts they were paying the Second Applicant.[80]It was put to him, given that he said he had never sought to avoid regulatory requirements, how he would characterise the failure to 18 provide necessary documents. He said that the gas checks were done in front of the Applicants and they could have had a copy if they had wanted. He said that the Property already had an electricity certificate and it was given to the tenants or the lead tenant had a copy.[81]He was referred to CDC2, paragraph 5.1 and it was put to him that he should have checked for licensing requirements. He said that there was a reason for consultation and without consultation, it was very difficult for stakeholders or landlords to be part of the consultation. He said that he should have been informed as it affected him.[82]He was referred to CDC9 and he said that he was sure it was a generic email.[83]He was asked if his position was still that the Property was not required to have a licence. He said that the application was made on 20 December 2024 and as from 1 December 2023 there were only two people at the Property – an additional licence required three people. The Tribunal asked him whether he accepted the Property needed a licence before December 2023 and he said that he had emails from the local authority about his formal complaint.[84]He was referred to DST5 and that this correspondence was after the Applicants had moved out. He said that he only found out there was a need for a licence when this application had been issued.[85]It was put to him that the Property did need a licence when it had three tenants in 2023-2024. He asked about the responsibility of the local authority to do a lawful consultation, and that it was clear in the Housing Act 2004 HA that all landlords must be consulted. He said that he lived outside the borough, and if there were signposts he had not seen them, not many people went in to libraries. He said that the local authority had failed in its obligations. As result, he was in this situation. He said that if he had been consulted, he would not be here. He had paid for the sub-letting licence registration, why would he not pay for this?[86]He was referred to R1, paragraph 3 and to CDC1, paragraph 2.2 and CDC6. It was said that this explained how the scheme was publicised. He said that there was a difference between general advertising and the importance of directly getting in contact with those that are stakeholders and known landlords that are going to be affected by the changes. It was put to him that he had not provided any evidence that the local authority had failed to meet the publication requirements. He said that he did not agree, he had provided evidence from the local authority confirming they did not use the sub-letting register.[87]He was asked if her had sought legal advice about taking forward a challenge about the failure to consult. He said he had put in a formal 19 complaint, and it had taken while to work out the legalities. If it got to the stage where he needed more help, he would consider it. He said that he was a known landlord.[88]It was put to him that licensing meant a regime was imposed in relation to standards for properties, that it was important that there was such a regime and he was asked if he agree with it. He said that he did not, as he was not a rogue landlord.[89]He was asked if he had conducted property inspections and he said that he had been to the property. He was asked how frequently he had been there in 2023-Jan 2024. He said three or four times, and he had been at least 19 times whilst the tenants were there. He confirmed that he had seen the living conditions, there were times there were issues with plumbing, and he came to see if he had do anything.[90]He was asked about the sink drainage problems. He said that he repaired it multiple times. He said that if there were issues with the Property, the Second Applicant would call him.[91]It was put to him that on 30 January 2024 the Applicants had to stay awake at the Property to bail out the sink. He agreed that they had mentioned an overspill. He was taken to A25 and he was asked if it was appropriate to leave it like that for several days. He said that he liked to use plumbers that he knew, or were recommended or ones he had used. He had approached several as the Second Applicant usually wanted things to be done straight away but it was not always possible, that sometimes it took a few days. It was put to him that the Applicants could not use the sink for 3 days (A26) and he said that he had got it done as soon as he could. He was taken to A27 and he said that he had made it clear that he was waiting for a plumber, that lots of them were unreliable, some did not turn up, and as soon as something was an issue he would try to get someone to fix it.[92]It was put to him that it was not appropriate for a responsible landlord to leave the tenants to liaise on a major repair such as the roof. He said that the tenants asked to liaise with the local authority. When he was asked if he had any evidence of that, he asked if the Applicants had any evidence to suggest otherwise. He was taken to A32-4 and he said that the Third Applicant was dealing with the roof issue. He said that the tenants preferred that they dealt with it. He said that he was the one who put them in contact with the local authority.[93]He was taken R35, para. 6.7, and R36 para. 12 and the reference LACoRS guidance. He said that this was for a “general HMO”. When asked why he had included it, he said that he did not know but that there was a big difference in requirements. The Tribunal noted that the document states that it is for all HMO’s and that the Property was a HMO. The 20 Respondent said that it was his understanding that standards for selective and additional licences are different and a lot less.[94]He said that the doors had changed since those shown at AR89-90. When asked if he had evidence of this, he said it had not been requested.[95]He said that he was going to get a carbon monoxide alarm, but the Applicants said that would get it. When asked if it was appropriate to leave tenants responsible for fire safety, he said that there was a linked fire alarm and heat detector, mains connected with battery pack, there was one alarm in the kitchen and one in the stairwell at the top on the first floor. The Tribunal asked him if the fire alarms were checked and he said that they were as there was an issue with a fire alarm not going off and he got an electrician to go in. He agreed that fire safety breaches were serious matters.[96]The Respondent agreed that there was a blown fuse in November 2022 and he had sent an electrician to replace the alarms and re-wire. It was put to him that the electrician found that the old fuse box was not up to standard. He said that there were two electricians, and one was junior, he was the one who said that. When the Respondent called his boss, the boss said it was no longer an issue and he got an electricity certificate. He was referred to A24 and he said that when the boss called, he said that the other person was unqualified. He confirmed that he had booked the electrician. H was asked why he had booked someone unqualified and he said that the boss was qualified.[97]The Respondent said that gas inspections were carried out at least once or twice a year. He said that the certificate he had shown at the Tribunal was the latest one.[98]He was asked why he had not applied for a temporary exemption notice in 2023-2024. He asked why he would as there was no need for a licence as he lived there. It was put to him that he had not done his due diligence inquiries about his obligations in respect of licensing. He said he had done it as soon as he was aware and he was doing it now in terms of making the complaint. He was asked for his reason for not having a licence from 1 February 2021. He said he would have to have known what he was searching for to find it. He was asked about his assertion that he could not check due to Covid. He confirmed he had access to the internet. It was put to him that lockdowns ended in March 2021. He said, “for some”. It was put to him that he had had time to apply for a licence. He said that he was not consulted.[99]He was asked how, given his personal circumstances he had managed his business. He said that he had people working for him, his business was self-sustaining, but spending more time with his father did have some effect on his business. He had someone working there who could do most stuff, but once he left, it was difficult for him to leave his father. He 21 confirmed that a responsible business owner has to stay informed about his responsibilities. It was put to him that acting as a landlord was also a business. He agreed and said that he had an obligation to humans. He said that he did have carers for his father, but there were some issues with them and it was difficult towards the end for him to leave his father. He confirmed that the daughter-in-law referred to on D48 was his wife, but she was only “in the picture” since his father had passed away. He was asked how he had afforded the works to the Property. He said he had not touched the rent money, he had help from his mother, some money was given at his wedding.[100]The Respondent asserted that the First Applicant had moved out of the Property on 1 December 2023 and she was not a tenant into January/February 2024. He said he was not aware her other potential property had fallen through.[101]The Respondent confirmed that there were no complaints about the Applicants’ behaviour and that he had been happy to provide references for them.[102]It was put to him that tidying the garden and picture frames were fairly minor issues, and were general wear and tear. He said that they were unauthorised. He accepted that they were quite minor but by putting up picture frames on wall, over 3 years there was discolouration, so he had to repaint and wallpaper. He was asked why he had not raised an issue on any of his visits. He said that until about December 2023, he was happy with the Applicants, but once they said they were going to move out, they stopped caring for the Property.[103]The Respondent confirmed that he had not given formal written notice to the Applicants to leave the Property. It was put to him that the Second Applicant asked for a s.21 notice and he said that he had not refused one.[104]It was put to him that he was the beneficiary of the works carried out. He said that it was never his intention to live at the Property, but he did not have the money to move into a house and so it made sense to move in as a “stop-off”. It was put to him that the new kitchen was for him. He said that he had replaced a gloss white kitchen with a gloss white kitchen. The invoice for the kitchen was less than £3,000, which was a budget kitchen.[105]He confirmed that the reason for requiring the Applicants to leave as that he was getting married. It was put to him that it was a “no fault” eviction but he had not given a s.21 notice. He said that the Applicants “were okay” and he thought they had relationship. He confirmed his business filed tax returns and he had declared all his income. He said that he did not know the turnover of the business but that it was not a lot. 22[106]The Respondent confirmed that the deposit had not been returned to the Applicants.[107]He was asked by the Tribunal what he had done to ensure that he was aware of his responsibilities as a landlord. He said he had not joined any landlord association as he did not think there was any need, he knew about HMO requirements, but the Property was not a HMO and the standards were good. He was asked why he said that the Property was not a HMO. He said that he knew some of the rules but he saw the Property was as flat share. He was asked if he accepted the Property was a HMO in 2023. He confirmed that it was until 1 December 2023 as the licensing scheme required a licence for three people who were unrelated.[108]He was asked what he wanted the Tribunal to know about his financial circumstances. He said that whatever money he had made from the Property he had put back into it. He said he did not have much money, his mother had helped with buying the Property, he had spent on the wedding and his business was just him, he was on about £37,000 per annum (but he then said he would need to confirm that). He confirmed that he had not been convicted of any offences previously.[109]The Tribunal confirmed with the Applicants that if a RRO was made, it could be apportioned between the Applicants.[110]The Respondent was asked if there was anything he wanted to say about the legalities of local authority consultation. He said he relied on R (Peat & Ors) v Hyndburn BC [2011] EWHC 1739 (Admin); R (Regas & Ors) v LB of Enfield [2014] EWHC 4173 (Admin) and he said that the Court agreed that it was unlawful. In this case, he was a known landlord, he had got property in the borough and he was not consulted. One of principles of consultation was to consult landlords. The local authority had said that only had 72 landlords had responded which did not seem likely.[111]When asked if there was anything he wanted to say on the quantum of any award, he said that the application had not been made in time and no licence was needed as from 1 December 2023. He said that he had no notice a licence was needed and this was a “no fault” case.[112]The Respondent confirmed that there were no other submissions he wanted to make.[113]Ms. Donnelly-Jackson said that the consultation issue was dealt with at AR115 on. She said that any challenge to defective consultation would have to be by way of judicial review. There was nothing from the Respondent to demonstrate that the publication of the scheme was inadequate and there was ample information in the report as to how the local authority had implemented the scheme. It was a strict liability 23 offence and the onus was on the landlord to make himself aware of his responsibilities. The Applicants relied on Thurrock Council v Daoudi [2020] UKUT 209 [26]-[27]. Until 9 February 2024, the Property was the First Applicant’s sole residence.[114]In relation to seriousness, she said:(a) There was a lack of processes to keep abreast of requirements – Aytan at [52];(b) There were fire safety breaches, breaches of the local authority HMO guidance and LACoRS;(c) There was a failure to provide documents;(d) There were issues in terms of the deposit;(e) No How to Rent guide was given;(f) There were disrepair and maintenance issues (the Tribunal raised the issue of whether this fell into conduct rather than seriousness);(g) There was a breach of additional licensing standards.[115]As to conduct, it was said:(a) The eviction notice that was given was “casual”;(b) The Applicant’s rights to quiet enjoyment were breached;(c) There were policy objectives in the licensing requirements and this was a case envisaged by the legislation – Williams v Parmar at [51].[116]As to quantum, it was said the award should be 90%. In Newell 60% was awarded for a s.95 offence. Here, there were fire safety breaches, and this was more serious. Daff v Gyalui [2023] UKUT 134 (LC) said that it had to be dealt with on a case by case basis.[117]The Applicants asked for reimbursement of Tribunal fees of £337 (£110 plus £227). The Respondent said that the tenancy agreement said 2 months’ notice should be given and he gave more. He said that he should not be in the Tribunal and that it should not be a case. Statutory regime[118]The statutory regime is set out in Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the 2016 Act. 24[119]Rent repayment orders are one of a number of measures introduced with the aim of discouraging rogue landlords and agents and to assist with achieving and maintaining acceptable standards in the rented property market. The relevant provisions relating to rent repayment orders are set out in sections 40-46 Housing and Planning Act 2016 (“the 2016”) Act, not all of which relate to the circumstances of this case.[120]Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) introduced licensing for certain HMO’s. The Local Authority may designate an area to be subject to additional licencing where other categories of HMO’s occupied by three or more persons forming two or more households are required to be licenced.[121]Section 40 of the 2016 Act gives the Tribunal power to make a RRO where a landlord has committed a relevant offence. Section 40(2) explains that a RRO is an order requiring the landlord under a tenancy of housing in England to repay an amount of rent paid by a tenant (or where relevant to pay a sum to a local authority). A relevant offence is an offence, of a description specified in a table in the section and that is committed by a landlord in relation to housing in England let by that landlord. The table includes s.72(1) Housing Act 2004. 41 Application for a 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 …[122]Section 41 permits a tenant to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a rent repayment order against a person who has committed a specified offence, if the offence relates to housing rented by the tenant(s) and the offence was committed in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made. 43 Making of 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 has 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- 25 (a) section 44 (where the application is made by a tenant); …[123]Under section 43, the Tribunal may only make a rent repayment order if satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt in relation to matters of fact, that the landlord has committed a specified offence (whether or not the landlord has been convicted). Where reference is made below to the Tribunal being satisfied of a given matter in relation to the commission of an offence, the Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, whether stated specifically or not.[124]It has been confirmed by case authorities that a lack of reasonable doubt, which may be expressed as the Tribunal being sure, does not mean proof beyond any doubt whatsoever. Neither does it preclude the Tribunal drawing appropriate inferences from evidence received and accepted. The standard of proof relates to matters of fact. The Tribunal will separately determine the relevant law in the usual manner.[125]Where the application is made by a tenant, and the landlord has not been convicted of a relevant offence, s.44 applies in relation to the amount of a rent repayment order, setting out the maximum amount that may be ordered and matters to be considered. If the offence relates to HMO licensing, the amount must relate to rent paid by the Applicants in a period, not exceeding 12 months, during which the Respondents were committing the offence. This aspect is discussed rather more fully below. 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 repaid by the tenant in respect of … 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 repaid 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, 26 (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. Determination of the Tribunal[126]The Tribunal has considered the application in four stages-(i) whether the Tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent had committed an offence under section 72(1) of the 2004 Act in that at the relevant time the Respondent was a person who controlled or managed an HMO that was required to be licensed under Part 2 of the 2004 Act but was not so licensed.(ii) whether the Applicant was entitled to apply to the Tribunal for a rent repayment order.(iii) Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to make a rent repayment order.(iv) Determination of the amount of any order. Was the application made in time?[127]The Respondent contends that the application was submitted 20 days outside the statutory time limit (s.41(2)(b) Housing and Planning Act 2016). This provides that a tenant may apply for a rent repayment order only if the offence was committed in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made. The Respondent asserts that as from 1 December 2023, the First Applicant had moved out and so there were no more than two people living at the Property, so no offence was being committed as from that date. As the application was made on 20 December 2024, it is said that the application was not made within the time limit.[128]The Applicants dispute the factual basis of the submission and assert that the First Applicant was still living at the Property until into February 2024 and therefore, that the application was made in time.[129]The Second and Third Applicants moved out on 28 February 2024 (A21, A29, A38). The Tribunal finds that the First Applicant moved out no earlier than 9 February 2025 for the following reasons:(a) The bill for removal services is dated 9 February 2024 (AR62);(b) She paid rent up to 28 February 2024 as well as bills (AR69-79, AR112, DST83); 27(c) She was still staying at and travelling to and from the Property throughout December 2023 and into January 2024 (AR33-42);(d) She did say that she was “looking to move out” at the start of December (DST2) but even at that time, she stated that if was subject to a landlord reference (i.e. it was not definite);(e) The Respondent does not contend that he was told, before February 2024, that the First Applicant had actually moved out;(f) The Tribunal accepts that the First Applicant did not say that she would be staying with her mother over the Christmas period and accepts that she was living at the Property during that time;(g) Her plans to move out did fall through in October 2023 (AR20-28);(h) The Respondent was made aware of this as she notified him on 5 January 2024 (DST3) that she had signed a licence agreement elsewhere. He did not respond stating that he thought she had already moved out;(i) Her Licence Agreement started in February 2024 (AR45);(j) She was referred to in the reference request as a “previous” tenant (DST4, DST9), but that makes sense in the context of a request for a reference and it would have been clear that, at that time, she had not secure other accommodation;[130]The Tribunal notes the document from the neighbour (DST10), but she did not attend the Tribunal to give evidence and the Tribunal accepts that she got the identities of the Applicants confused (AR32).[131]The application was therefore made within the statutory time limit and the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to consider the application. Did the Property require a licence at the material time?[132]It is not disputed that the LB of Islington purported to introduce an additional licensing scheme as of 1 February 2021 (A113) and that, under that scheme, HMO’s (as defined in s.254 Housing Act 2004) which are occupied by three or more people, who are not members of the same household, required a licence. Save for a challenge as set out below (in respect of consultation), it is not disputed that the Property needed a licence. 28[133]The Respondent states that he received no correspondence, notice of invitation to participate in consultation or to register to a licence, and if he had, he would have applied. He asserts that the local authority admits it did not send consultation letters (CDC5). This was in breach of s.80(9) Housing Act 2004. The Respondent relies on the cases of R (Peat & Ors) v Hyndburn BC [2011] EWHC 1739 (Admin); R (Regas & Ors) v LB of Enfield [2014] EWHC 4173 (Admin).[134]In LDC (Ferry Lane) v Garro the local authority introduced an additional licensing scheme. It carried out a consultation exercise but did not specifically consult the respondent company. It did publicise the scheme by, among other things, publishing a notice on its website, contacting those who had responded to the consultation and notifying a number of organisations which represented landlords, managing agents and tenants. The applicants were the respondent’s tenants and they applied to the Tribunal for RRO’s. The respondent contended it had a reasonable excuse defence as it had been unaware of the additional licensing scheme and, in particular, it had not been consulted on the scheme. The Tribunal rejected the defence. It made a RRO in the sum of 50% as the failure to obtain a licence was not deliberate and the standard of accommodation was good. The Tribunal found, among other things, that before the designation took effect, it was advertised in local newspapers, through a landlord's forum, and by circulation to landlord "governing bodies" and to Haringey's landlord and agent mailing list. The FTT concluded: "The respondents cannot excuse their failure to licence on the basis that the local authority did not go one step further and contact them directly. The reasonable excuse defence is rejected."[135]The respondent appealed to the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal held that before introducing an additional licensing scheme, s.56(3) Housing Act 2004, requires a local authority to “take reasonable steps to consult persons who are likely to be affected”; there is no obligation on an authority to consult a particular landlord; there was no evidence to suggest that Haringey LBC knew that the respondent company owned accommodation in its area when it was considering introducing the scheme; the fact that the company had not been consulted before the scheme was introduced could not provide it with a reasonable excuse for failing to have HMO licences [37]. Further, the burden on establishing the defence of reasonable excuse was on the company yet it had provided no evidence to the First-tier Tribunal of the steps which it had taken to keep itself informed of licensing requirements in Haringey; the tribunal had been entitled to find that the defence of reasonable excuse was not made out [39].[136]At [38], the Upper Tribunal said: 29 The appellant is in the position of many landlords who discover that they have been committing an offence because they were unaware that a licensing scheme, mandatory or additional, applies to their property. Occasionally ignorance has been accepted as providing a reasonable excuse (generally where there has been a reasonable excuse for that ignorance) but usually it has not. The answer given to such landlords by tribunals has most often been that the responsibilities of managing residential property are not to be undertaken carelessly, and that managers and landlords are expected to make themselves aware of the current licensing or other regulatory requirements which affect their business… If an additional scheme had not been properly advertised ignorance of it might be reasonable especially if it could be shown that a landlord had taken reasonable steps to keep informed but had nevertheless been unaware of the scheme”.[137]The above case considered this issue in the context of a “reasonable excuse” defence. In this instant case, the Tribunal cannot find the local authority’s licensing scheme unlawful - that would have to be by way of a judicial review (AR7, para. 30) and it is noted that the cases of Peat and Regas were applications for judicial review. The issue, however, is relevant to whether there is a reasonable excuse defence, and the Tribunal considers it further below in that context. Was the Respondent the Applicants’ landlord at the time of the alleged offence?[138]The three Applicants were all living in the premises as of 1 March 2021 (A18, A125, A142-145) and they all continued to live there until beyond 31 December 2023 (the last date for which the RRO is sought).[139]The Tribunal finds as a fact, that the Respondent was the landlord of the Applicants for the period 1 January 2023-31 December 2023. The Respondent is listed as the landlord on the tenancy agreements (A59 – 1 February 2021-31 January 2022). The Third Applicant is not listed on the tenancy agreement but it is accepted that she did move in and replaced Ms. Heatley (A144-145) and that she was a tenant during the period 1 January 2023-31 December 2023. The Respondent is listed as having title absolute of the Property (A136). The Respondent accepts that he was the Applicant’s landlord, although he does dispute that he was the First Applicant’s landlord after 1 December 2023 as he contended that she had moved out on that date. This has been dealt with above. Was a relevant HMO licensing offence committed during the period 1 January 2023-31 December 2023 and by whom? 30[140]The Tribunal applies, as it must, the criminal standard of proof (s.43(1)).[141]The Tribunal finds that, during the relevant period(s), the Property was a “HMO” (s.254-259) and the Property required a licence (A113, A149) in order to be occupiable by three or more persons living in two or more separate households. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the Property was, at the material times, occupied by three people living in more than two separate households.[142]Section 72(1) of the 2004 Act is one of those listed in section 40 of the 2016 Act in respect of which the First-tier Tribunal may make a rent repayment order. The section provides that: “A person commits an offence if he is a person having control of or managing an HMO which is required to be licensed… but is not so licensed”.[143]Section 61(1) states: “Every HMO to which this Part applies must be licensed under this Part unless-(a) a temporary exemption notice is in force in relation to it under section 62, or(b) an interim or final management order is in force in relation to it under Chapter 1 of Part 4”.[144]Section 55 states: “(1) This Part provides for HMOs to be licensed by local housing authorities where-(a) HMOs to which this Part applies (see subsection (2)), and(b) they are required to be licensed under this Part (see section 61(1)). (2) This Part applies to the following HMOs in the case of each local housing authority- (a) any HMO in the authority’s district which falls within any prescribed description of HMO, and (b) if an area is for the time being designated by the authority under section 56 as subject to additional licensing, any HMO in that area which falls within any description of HMO specified in the designation”.[145]The Respondent does not dispute the fact that there was no licence during the material period, but in any event, on the evidence, the Tribunal would have found (applying the criminal standard) that there was no licence in place during the material time (A102-104). 31[146]Where the Respondent would otherwise have committed an offence under section 72(1) of the 2004 Act, there is a defence if the Tribunal finds that there was a reasonable excuse pursuant to section 72(5). The standard of proof in relation to that is the balance of probabilities. Where the Tribunal makes findings of fact in relation to such an aspect of the case, it does so on the basis of which of the two matters it finds more likely. It does not need to be sure in the manner that it does with facts upon which the asserted commission of an offence is based.[147]The offence is strict liability (unless the Respondent had a reasonable excuse) as held in Mohamed v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2020] EWHC 1083. The intention or otherwise of the Respondent to commit the offence is not the question at this stage, albeit there is potential relevance to the amount of any award. The case authority of Sutton v Norwich City Council [2020] UKUT 90 (LC) in relation to reasonable excuse held that the failure of the company, as it was in that case, to inform itself of its responsibilities did not amount to reasonable excuse. The point applies just the same to individuals.[148]The Upper Tribunal gave guidance on what amounts to reasonable excuse defence was given in Marigold & Ors v Wells [2023] UKUT 33 (LC), D’Costa v D’Andrea & Ors [2021] UKUT 144 (LC) and in Aytan v Moore [2022] UKUT 027 (LC):(a) the Tribunal should consider whether the facts raised could give rise to a reasonable excuse defence, even if the defence has not been specifically raised by the Respondent;(b) when considering reasonable excuse defences, the offence is managing or being in control of an HMO without a licence;(c) it is for the Respondent to make out the defence of reasonable excuse to the civil standard of proof.[149]The Respondent raises reasonable excuse defences as follows:[150]The first matter raised is that the Respondent received no correspondence, notice of invitation to participate in consultation or to register to a licence, and if he had, he would have applied.[151]The Tribunal refers to the case of LDC (Ferry Lane) v Garro above. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent was not consulted by the local authority before implementation of the additional licensing scheme (R2, R29). The local authority was aware that the Respondent was letting out the Property (R19-28) but the licensing scheme was publicised (A113, AR6, para. 28, 30) and had been in force since 1 February 2021 (A113). The Respondent therefore had ample time before the period of the offence (starting 1 January 2023) to have made himself aware of the scheme. The Respondent had a duty to ensure that he was aware of the licensing requirement of the borough in which he was letting out a 32 Property. The Respondent had taken no steps to keep himself informed of the licensing requirements.[152]The second issue raised by the Respondent is that he thought that the First Applicant had moved out on 1 December 2023. This would only provide a defence from that date, but in any event, the Tribunal refers to the matters set out above, including the finding that the First Applicant’s plans to move out did fall through in October 2023 and the Respondent was made aware of this as she notified him on 5 January 2024 that she had signed a licence agreement. He did not respond stating that he thought she had already moved out. Further, the Respondent does not contend that he was ever told that the First Applicant had moved out.[153]The third issue raised is that the consultation concluded at a time when the nation was pre-occupied with public health, safety and survival due to the outbreak of Covid-19 and staying informed about administrative changes was impossible. Further, at the time of the consultation and licensing period, the Respondent was experiencing exceptional personal hardship (R48-75). The Tribunal notes the Respondent’s personal circumstances and takes them into account, but it does not find that staying informed about administrative changes was impossible. The Respondent was renting out the Property and had a duty to keep informed of legal requirements – as set out above, after it had been decided to implement the scheme, the scheme was publicised. The Respondent did not have any process in place to keep abreast of the requirements.[154]The fourth issue raised is that the Respondent is a small-scale, single-property landlord with no history of non-compliance. These are matters which the Tribunal takes into account when assessing culpability, but they do not amount to a reasonable excuse defence.[155]The Tribunal therefore finds, on the balance of probabilities, that no reasonable excuse defence is made out.[156]The Tribunal finds that the offence was committed for the period of 1 January 2023-31 December 2023.[157]The next question is by whom the offence was committed. The Tribunal determined that the offence was committed by the Respondent, being the “person” within the meaning of s.71(1) and s.263 Housing Act 2004, who had control of the Property at the material time: the Respondent was listed as the immediate landlord on the tenancy agreements and is the beneficial owner (A98). In any event, the Respondent was the “person” managing the Property during the material time as it was the person who received the rent paid by the Applicants. 33 Should the Tribunal make a RRO?[158]Given that the Tribunal is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Respondent committed an offence under section 72(1) of the 2004 Act, a ground for making a rent repayment order has been made out.[159]Pursuant to the 2016, a rent repayment order “may” be made if the Tribunal finds that a relevant offence was committed. Whilst the Tribunal could determine that a ground for a rent repayment order is made out but not make such an order, Judge McGrath, President of this Tribunal, said whilst sitting in the Upper Tribunal in the London Borough of Newham v John Francis Harris [2017] UKUT 264 (LC) as follows: “I should add that it will be a rare case where a Tribunal does exercise its discretion not to make an order. If a person has committed a criminal offence and the consequences of doing so are prescribed by legislation to include an obligation to repay rent housing benefit then the Tribunal should be reluctant to refuse an application for rent repayment order”.[160]The very clear purpose of the 2016 Act is that the imposition of a rent repayment order is penal, to discourage landlords from breaking the law, and not to compensate a tenant, who may or may not have other rights to compensation. That must, the Tribunal considers, weigh especially heavily in favour of an order being made if a ground for one is made out.[161]The Tribunal is given a wide discretion and considers that it is entitled to look at all of the circumstances in order to decide whether or not its discretion should be exercised in favour of making a rent repayment order. The Tribunal determines that it is entitled to therefore consider the nature and circumstances of the offence and any relevant conduct found of the parties, together with any other matters that the Tribunal finds to properly be relevant in answering the question of how its discretion ought to be exercised.[162]Taking account of all factors, the evidence and submissions of the parties, including the purpose of the 2004 Act, the Tribunal exercises its discretion to make a rent repayment order in favour of the Applicants. The amount of rent to be repaid[163]Having exercised its discretion to make a rent repayment order, the next decision was how much should the Tribunal order? 34[164]In Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC) at [20] the Upper Tribunal established a four-stage approach for the Tribunal to adopt when assessing the amount of any order:(a) ascertain the whole of the rent for the relevant period;(b) subtract any element that represents payment for utilities;(c) consider the seriousness of the offence, 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. What proportion of the rent is a fair reflection of the seriousness of this offence? That percentage of the total amount applies for is the starting point; it is the default penalty in the absence of other factors, but it may be higher or lower in light of the final step;(d) consider whether any deductions from, or addition to, that figure should be made in light of the other factors set out in section 44(4)”.[165]In the absence of a conviction, the relevant provision is section 44(3) of the 2016 Act. Therefore, the amount ordered to be repaid must “relate to” rent paid in the period identified as relevant in section 44(2), the subsection which deals with the period identified as relevant in section 44(2), the subsection which deals with the period of rent repayments relevant. The period is different for two different sets of offences. The first is for offences which may be committed on a one-off occasion, albeit they may also be committed repeatedly. The second is for offences committed over a period of time, such as a licensing offence.[166]At [31] of Williams v Parmar [2021] UKUT 244 (LC) it was said: “… [the Tribunal] is not required to be satisfied to the criminal standard on the identity of the period specified in s.44(2). Identifying that period is an aspect of quantifying the amount of the RRO, even though the period is defined in relation to certain offences as being the period during which the landlord was committing the offence”.[167]The Tribunal is mindful of the various decisions of the Upper Tribunal in relation to rent repayment order cases. Section 44 of the 2016 Act does not when referring to the amount include the word “reasonable” in the way that the previous provisions in the 2004 Act did. Judge Cooke stated clearly in her judgement in Vadamalayan v Stewart and others (2020) UKUT 0183 (LC) that there is no longer a requirement of reasonableness. Judge Cooke noted (paragraph 19) that the rent repayment regime was intended to be harsh on landlords and to operate as a fierce deterrent. The judgment held in clear terms, and perhaps most significantly, that the Tribunal must consider the actual rent paid and not simply any profit element which the landlord derives from the property, to which no reference is made in the 2016 Act. The Upper Tribunal additionally made it clear that the benefit obtained by the tenant in having had the 35 accommodation is not a material consideration in relation to the amount of the repayment to order. However, the Tribunal could take account of the rent including the utilities where it did so. In those instances, the rent should be adjusted for that reason.[168]In Vadamalayan, there were also comments about how much rent should be awarded and some confusion later arose. Given the apparent misunderstanding of the judgment in that case, on 6th October 2021, the judgment of The President of the Lands Chamber, Fancourt J, in Williams v Parmar [2021] UKUT 0244 (LC) was handed down. Williams has been applied in more recent decisions of the Upper Tribunal, as well as repeatedly by this Tribunal. The judgment explains at paragraph 50 that: “A tribunal should address specifically what proportion of the maximum amount of rent paid in the relevant period, or reduction from that amount, or a combination of both, is appropriate in all the circumstances, bearing in mind the purpose of the legislative provisions.”[169]The judgment goes on to state that the award should be that which the Tribunal considers appropriate applying the provisions of section 44(4). There are matters which the Tribunal “must, in particular take into account”. The Tribunal is compelled to consider those and to refer to them. The phrase “in particular” suggests those factors should be given greater weight than other factors. In Williams, they are described as “the main factors that may be expected to be relevant in the majority of cases”- and such other ones as it has determined to be relevant, giving them the weight that it considers each should receive. Fancourt J in Williams says this: “A tribunal must have particular regard to the conduct of both parties includes the seriousness of the offences committed), the financial circumstances of the landlord and whether the landlord has been convicted of a relevant offence, The Tribunal should also take into account any other factors that appear to be relevant.”[170]The Tribunal must not order more to be repaid than was actually paid out by the Applicants to the Respondent during that period (ignoring for these purposes a provision about universal credit not of relevance here). That is entirely consistent with the order being one for repayment. The provision refers to the rent paid during the period rather than rent for the period.[171]It was said, in Williams v Parmar, by Sir Timothy Fancourt [43] that the Rent Repayment Orders under the Housing and Planning Act 2016: Guidance for Local Authorities identifies the factors that a local authority should take into account in deciding whether to seek a Rent Repayment Order as being the need to: punish offending landlords; deter the particular landlord from further offences; dissuade other landlords from breaching the law; and remove from landlords the financial benefit of offending. It was indicated [51] that the factors identified in the Guidance will generally justify an order for repayment of at least a 36 substantial part of the rent. It was also said that a full award of 100% of the rent should be reserved for the most serious of cases.[172]The Tribunal has carefully considered the amount of the rent for the relevant period of the licencing offence that should be awarded. Ascertain the whole of the rent for the relevant period[173]The relevant rent to consider is that paid during “a period, not exceeding twelve months, during which the landlord was committing the offence”.[174]An issue was raised by the Respondent as to which 12-month period in respect of which the RRO was sought. The Applicant are entitled to recover any rent paid in any 12 months during which the offence was committed: s.44 Housing and Planning Act 2004 and LON/00AJ/HMF/2018/0053 (Sharma & Subramani v Lau) in which it found, among other things, that the amount of a RRO is not limited to 12 months prior to the application to the Tribunal, but to a maximum 12-month period during which the landlord is committing the relevant offence, in accordance with section 44(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.[175]The tenancy agreement (A59) states that the rent was £1,850 pcm but this was before the Third Applicant moved in. There is a schedule of the rent said to have been paid and which is claimed (A67). There is evidence of payments (A67-97, A121-123), but the Respondent accepts that the rent charged as contended for by the Applicants and that the full amount of the rent was paid, i.e. 3 months at £1,650 (A84) and then 9 months at £1,850 (A18, A23). The rent was paid up to 28 February 2024 (A21, A29, A38). The total rent paid was £21,450 split as follows:(a) The First Applicant paid £500 per month when the rent was £1,650 per month and £580 when the rent was £1,850 per month;(b) The Second Applicant paid £615 when the rent was £1,650 per month and £650 when the rent was £1,850 per month;(c) The Third Applicant paid £535 per month when the rent was £1,650 and £620 per months when the rent was £620.[176]None of the Applicants were in receipt of Universal Credit or Housing Benefit.[177]The whole of the rent for the relevant period is therefore £21,450. 37 Deductions for utilities?[178]The Applicants were liable for all charges in respect of supply and use of utilities (A126-141), and so no deductions are made in this regard. Seriousness of the offence[179]In Williams v Parmar [2021] UKUT 244 (LC) it was said that “the circumstances and seriousness of the offending conduct of the landlord are comprised in the ‘conduct of the landlord’, so the First Tier Tribunal may, in an appropriate case, order a lower than maximum amount of rent repayment, if what a landlord did or failed to do in committing the offence is relatively low in the scale of seriousness of mitigating circumstances or otherwise”.[180]As the Upper Tribunal has made clear, the conduct of the Respondent also embraces the culpability of the Respondent in relation to the offence that is the pre-condition for the making of the Rent Repayment Order. The offence of controlling or managing an unlicensed HMO is a serious offence, although it is clear from the scheme and detailed provisions of the 2016 Act that it is not regarded as the most serious of the offences listed in section 40(3).[181]In Daff v Gyalui [2023] UKUT 134 (LC) it was highlighted that there will be more and less serious examples within the category of offence: [49].[182]The Tribunal notes the submissions of the Applicants (A13-16).[183]The Tribunal determines that the relatively less serious offence committed by the Respondent (i.e. a licensing offence) should be reflected in a deduction from the maximum amount in respect of which a RRO could be made.[184]In Newell v Abbot [2024] UKUT 181 (LC) was an appeal with a number of material similarities to the instant case. In Newell, the appropriate starting point was determined to be 60% of the rent paid. The tribunal took into account that(a) The Respondent is an amateur as opposed to a professional landlord. 38(b) The breach which occurred was inadvertent.(c) The property was in good condition; and(d) A licencing offence was committed (section 95(1), HA 2004).[185]The Tribunal does find that this is a more serious case than Newell in that the instant case concerned an additional licence. It is accepted, however, that the Respondent is an amateur landlord, the breach was inadvertent and the Property was generally in a good condition (dealt with more fully under the heading of “conduct”).[186]The starting point for the Tribunal, taking account of this, is that a RRO should be made, reflecting 65% of the total rent paid for the relevant period. Conduct[187]The Tribunal takes into account the conduct of the landlord and the tenant, the financial circumstances of the landlord and whether the landlord has at any time been convicted of an offence to which Chapter 4 of the 2016 Act applies when considering the amount of such order. Whilst those listed factors must therefore be taken into account, and the Tribunal should have particular regard to them, they are not the entirety of the matters to be considered: other matters are not excluded from consideration. Any other relevant circumstances should also be considered, requiring the Tribunal to identify whether there are such circumstances and, if so, to give any appropriate weight to them.[188]Allegations are made about the conduct of the Respondent:(a) Breach of s.5 of The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006: there were issue with the kitchen plumbing, the sink had drainage problems, which the Applicants asked the Respondent to repair; in January 2024 the kitchen tap began leaking causing the sink to overflow and flood the kitchen (A25, A37), after calling for an emergency plumber on 14 January 2022 (A26-27), it took three days for the Respondent to send someone, but the problem worsened, with the Applicants having to bail out the sink with buckets every hour. The issue was not resolved until early February 2024 (A19, A30); 39(b) No gas safety certificate was provided: breach of s.36 The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (A19);(c) The Applicants arranged a change of meter and a gas leak was discovered (A20);(d) No electrical condition report was provided – breach of s.3 The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 (A19);(e) No EPC was provided – breach of s.6 The Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 (A19);(f) No How to Rent Guide was provided – breach of s.39 Deregulation Act 2015 (A19);(g) These constitute breaches of s.234(3) Housing Act 2004;(h) There was a water leak in Room 2 that the Respondent attempted to fix before the Third Respondent moved in. The repair was inadequate, the Applicants had to contact the local authority to inspect and repair the roof (A20-21, A30, A32-34, A37);(i) In November 2022, a blown fuse caused the stairwell fire alarm to beep constantly. The Respondent sent an electrician (A24) who replaced both alarms and temporarily rewired the fuse. The electrician note that the old fuse box was not up to safety standards and needed replacing. The Respondent was notified but nothing was done;(j) The Applicants bought their own carbon monoxide alarm for the kitchen using their own funds;(k) The premises did not have any fire doors and the living room door could not be closed as the door did not properly fit the frame (A19);(l) There were only two functioning smoke alarms, which were not linked and there were none in the bedrooms (A19);(m) There was a vermin problem (A20, A29, A37, A146-148).[189]The Respondent states:(a) The Premises had fire doors and had a fire escape route of 60 minutes. The living room door was in working order and he was not informed otherwise;(b) There are two mains connected smoke alarms that are also battery packed, one in the living 40 room and one on the upper part of the stairwell to the first floor;(c) There was a carbon monoxide alarm;(d) An electrician attended in November 2022 and sorted the issue. He did not say the fuse-box was not compliant;(e) There were several occasions when a plumber attended, checks were carried out and certificates given. The plumber said that the probable reason for the blockage was oils/fats being poured down the sink;(f) The Respondent was not informed of any gas leaks or billed for any gas works by the engineer, there was no report of a gas leak;(g) In February 2021, he was informed of a crack in one of the bedrooms and he asked for works to be done. He visited the Property on 17 February 2025 and took pictures of the damage for the builders to provide an estimate. There was no sign of water penetration and the probable cause was cold bridging;(h) There were plumbing issues about the kitchen sink, but as soon as he was notified, he approached plumbers, it was impossible to find someone to come out immediately, but they would usually come out within 72 hours. On 20 January 2022, he received a message from the Second Applicant saying the plumber had resolved the issue and no issue was raised on 4 November 2022. The only other time an issue was raised was January 2024;(i) The Respondent was notified of the kitchen tap leaking on 14 January, and he went to look at it. Two days later it was confirmed the sink was not leaking. The only other issue was the washing machine and a plumber came out within three days. On 30 January, the Respondent was notified the kitchen tap was leaking again and the tap was changed on the same day;(j) There are no mice at the Property.[190]The Tribunal finds as follows:(a) The Respondent was not notified of the issues with the boiler;(b) The Property was in generally good condition (the Applicants were at the Property for about three years and although there was some mention by the First Applicant of moving out, 41 they did only leave at the Respondent’s instigation and as a result of a proposed rent increased), but there was an issue with the sink in January 2024 (A25-A27) which took three days to resolve, leaving the Applicants having to bail out the sink every hour;(c) Only one gas safety inspection was carried out during the Applicants’ occupancy and the certificate relating to that inspection was not provided to the Applicants in breach of s.36 The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998;(d) The electricity safety certificate produced to the Tribunal was incomplete. Taking this with A24, the Tribunal finds that there were electrical safety issues and no certificate was provided to the Applicants;(e) No EPC was provided, in breach of s.6 The Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012;(f) No How to Rent Guide was provided in breach of s.39 Deregulation Act 2015;(g) The Respondent had no process in place to keep abreast of his legal obligations (Aytan v Moore [2022] UKUT (LC) [52];(h) The Applicants’ deposit was not protected and there was no compliance with the relevant provisions of the Housing Act 2004 (A91).[191]Allegations are made by the Respondent about the conduct of the Applicants:(a) After the Applicants vacated the Premises, the Respondent discovered that they had been left in a severely damaged and uninhabitable state, requiring urgent and extensive refurbishment costing £37,261.55: structural damage and neglect, sanitary and hygiene issues rendering them unsafe for occupancy; degraded fixtures, fittings and furnishings;(b) The premises had been newly refurbished in or about October 2019;(c) The Applicants breached clauses of the tenancy agreement (cl. 3.3, 3.6, 3.7.83.103.11, 3.123.19, 3.20, 3.22, 3.29) - balcony pot plants vandalised, graffiti artwork, unauthorised picture frames on walls, garden not kept as required, mould and wallpaper peeling because of ill-ventilated rooms and drying wet cloths, laminate flooring buckling, carpet 42 stained , kitchen units damaged, bathroom had limescale;(d) The Premises were left in a dirty condition;(e) He attaches some photographs of the Premises from about October 2019 and then said to show the damage.[192]The Tribunal finds that there was damage to the balcony flower pots and they did hand some pictures on the walls. The works done by the Respondent after the Applicants left the Property cannot be attributed to the Applicants save as already said. The Property was rented out from October 2019 but these three Applicants together were only tenants from March 2021. The Respondent admitted that these were minor matters. There was some peeling wallpaper before the start of Applicants’ tenancy (AR86-7) and the Tribunal cannot attribute this to the Applicants. In terms of drying clothes, again the Tribunal cannot attribute any particular damage to the Applicant and the Respondent was notified of and reimbursed for a clothes drying system. The Tribunal cannot attribute any issue with the floorboards to the Applicant. The Respondent said that no issues were raised with the Applicants until after December 2023 and until then he was happy with the Applicants. It is not accepted that the Property was “uninhabitable” when the Applicants moved out.[193]Taking account of this and balancing all the factors, the Tribunal makes an adjustment to the amount of the RRO in the amount of 10%, i.e. deciding that a RRO should be made, reflecting 75% of the total rent paid for the relevant period. Whether landlord convicted of an offence[194]Section 44(4)(c) of the 2016 Act requires the Tribunal to take into account whether the Respondent has at any time been convicted of any of the offences listed in section 40(3). The Respondent has no such convictions. Financial circumstances of the Respondent[195]The Tribunal takes account of what the Respondent said about his financial circumstances and reduces the percentage of the award by 5%. The amount of the repayment 43[196]The Tribunal determines that, in order to reflect the factors discussed above, the maximum repayment amount should be discounted by 30% (i.e. the fine is 70% of the rent paid in the material period). The Tribunal therefore orders under s.43(1) of the 2016 Act that the Respondent repay to the Applicants the total sum of £15,015:(i) The First Applicant - £4,704;(ii) The Second Applicant - £5,281.50;(iii) The Third Applicant - £5,029.50.[197]The Tribunal has had regard to all the circumstances in setting a time for payment, including the amount of the RRO. Application for refund of fees[198]The Applicant asked the Tribunal to award the fees paid in respect of the application should they be successful, namely reimbursement of the issue fee and the hearing fee. The Tribunal does order the Respondent to pay all of the fees paid by the Applicant and so the sum of £337. Judge Sarah McKeown 19 September 2025 44 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)