165a Gainsborough Avenue, London E12 6JN: LON/00BB/HMA/2015/0015 LON/00BB/HMA/2015/0015

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00BB/HMA/2015/0015

Between

London Borough of NewhamApplicant

Mohibur Rahman Application for a Rent RepaymentRespondent

Before

Mr T Sennett

Date 14 December 2015

Property: London E12 6JN

Type of application: Order Judge Dickie

[1]In its Preliminary Decision dated 14 January 2016 the tribunal determined that the grounds for making a Rent Repayment Order are established and that it must therefore make such an order against the Respondent. However, it directed further written submission on the question of exceptional circumstances. Pursuant to s.97(4) of the Housing Act 2004, the tribunal may not make a RRO requiring the payment of any amount which it is satisfied that, by reason of any exceptional circumstances, it would be unreasonable for that person to be required to pay.

[2]The tribunal directed the Respondent to file and serve by 29 January 2016 his written submissions as to the existence of exceptional circumstances, supported by medical evidence and any other documents on which he relies. He did not comply with that deadline, and on 11 February the Applicant wrote to the tribunal to advise in the circumstances that it would not be making further submissions.

[3]On 8 March the Respondent emailed to the tribunal to say that his health issues had been deteriorating due to ongoing urine trapped infections, that over the previous six weeks he had lost a lot of blood and been mainly on bed rest, and had been referred to Newham Hospital for an operation and was awaiting his admission date. He also said he had made an appointment to see his doctor at the The Royal National Orthopaedic Trust on 10 March and would have an appointment next week with his GP, and that from both doctors he would obtain letters. He therefore asked for a further month within which to obtain these letters.

[4]The tribunal amended its directions to allow the Respondent until 5 April 2016 to produce his evidence and submissions. Those directions further required that the Respondent “must ensure that he complies with these directions. If owing to his health he is unable to do so he is expected to give sufficient authority and instruction to his carers or to instruct legal representatives to do so”. However, no further contact has been received from the Respondent.

[5]The tribunal has therefore proceeded to determine the application on the evidence that is before it. Evidence and Determination.

[6]The Applicant seeks a RRO in respect of the Housing Benefit paid in the sum of £9347.31 for the period 20 September 2013 to 1 September 2014, being the period 12 months prior to the Notice of Intended Proceedings. The duty to licence the property had arisen on 1 January 2013.

[7]This has not been a straightforward case for the tribunal to determine. The Respondent is a person with serious physical disabilities owing to a spinal cord injury sustained in 1996. Both his upper and lower limbs are severely affected. He uses a wheelchair and has round the clock care. There is no allegation of, and insufficient evidence to make out, any breach of duty owed by the Council under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

[8]There is no definition of “exceptional circumstances “for the purposes of s.97(4) of the Act, and it is for the tribunal to determine whether any such circumstances make it “unreasonable” for any amount to be repaid in a RRO. The tribunal has had particular regard to whether during the period in question there were circumstances which materially affected the Respondent's ability to obtain a licence, and his financial situation owing to his disability. However, whilst it seems likely that the Respondent does incur some expenditure on his care costs, relies heavily on the assistance of carers, and that he receives regular medical treatment, he has not produced a single document in support of his case.

[9]Though the Respondent has made reference to particular illnesses and hospitalisation, he has failed to provide medical evidence of this, and in particular of such matters affecting him during any relevant period such as would have affected his ability to obtain a licence. The Respondent has had ample opportunity to produce medical and documentary evidence, and to make further submissions.

[10]The Respondent has made a choice to be a landlord of two properties, and that comes with an obligation to comply with his legal responsibilities. He has equity in both of these properties (and part owns another in which he lives). The Respondent's health problems are long term, and it seems reasonable to expect him therefore to have in place reliable arrangements for the management of the properties and his compliance with his legal responsibilities as landlord which will overcome the limitations upon him which his disabilities cause. Though he has in the past experienced problems when relying on carers for his administration, he has chosen not to appoint a managing agent.

[11]Whilst plainly the Respondent's disabilities are exceptional, any exceptional circumstances must be such that it would be unreasonable to require repayment of any particular sum of Housing Benefit received. Having given the matter careful consideration, for the above reasons the tribunal cannot conclude that it would be unreasonable to order repayment of the full amount of Housing Benefit received during the 12 month period Name: F. Dickie Date: 3 May 2016