Thomas Simpson, Kaliya Georgieva, Ivaylo Atanasov, Scott LaneApplicantExpedius Properties LimitedRespondent
Before
Judge Bernadette MacQueenMr S Wheeler MCIEH, CEnvHThomas Simpson for the ApplicantOluwarotimi Ososami for the RespondentDate 2 June 2025Hearing 2025-05-01Property: Flat 15, Hudson Court, 3 Maritime Quay, London, E14 3QHType of application: Application by Tenant for rent repayment order. Sections 40,41, 43 & 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016
DECISION
[1]The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has committed the offence of failing to license a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) under the provisions of section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004, and that accordingly Rent Repayment Orders in favour of the Applicants can be made.[2]The Tribunal makes Rent Repayment Orders as follows:• Thomas Simpson - £5,658.75• Kaliya Georgieva and Ivaylo Atanasov - £5,377.50• Scott Lane - £4,443.75[3]These must be paid by the Respondent within 28 days of the date of this decision.[4]The Tribunal also orders the reimbursement of the Tribunal fees (application fee of £110 and hearing fee of £220), and this amount must be paid by the Respondent to the Applicants within 28 days of the date of this decision. The Application[5]By application dated 6 July 2024 and received by the Tribunal on 30 July 2024, the Applicants made an application for Rent Repayment Orders (RROs) under section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the Act) in relation to Flat 15, Hudson Court, 3 Maritime Quay, London, E14 3QH (the Property).[6]The relevant period for which the Applicants were seeking a RRO was from 1 April 2023 until 31 March 2024 (the Relevant Period) as follows: Name Period Rent Paid Total Thomas Simpson 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024£1,100 per month £13,200 Scott Lane 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024£875 per month £10,500 Kaliya Georgieva and Ivaylo Atanasov 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024£1,100 per month £13,200[7]Section 41(2)(b) Housing and Planning Act 2016 provides that an application for a RRO can only be made if the offence was committed in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made. The Tribunal was satisfied that the application had been made within this statutory time limit as the application to the Tribunal was made on 30 July 2024, and the last date of the offence for which the Applicants claimed an RRO was 31 March 2024. The application had therefore been brought within 12 months. The Documents Provided to the Tribunal[8]The Tribunal had made Directions dated 15 November 2024 and amended on 11 March 2025, that required each party to provide a bundle of relevant documents for use in the determination of the application.[9]The Applicants had provided a bundle of documents that consisted of 100 pages. The pages were not numbered but the bundle was divided into sections and consisted of the application form, details of the licensing scheme, and a section relating to each tenant which consisted of a witness statement and documents relied upon by each applicant. Additionally, the Applicants had provided a response to the Respondent’s bundle that also consisted of 28 pages.[10]The Respondent had produced a bundle consisting of 164 pages. The Hearing[11]The Hearing took place on 1 May 2025. Thomas Simpson and Scott Lane attended the hearing and gave evidence to the Tribunal. Thomas Simpson acted as the representative for all of the Applicants.[12]The Respondent, Expedius Properties, was represented by Oluwarotimi Ososami (also known as Rotimi Ososami), who was a Director of the Respondent. Agreed Facts[13]The Applicants alleged that the Respondent had committed an offence under section 72(1) Housing Act 2004, namely having control or management of an unlicensed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) which was required to be licensed under the Tower Hamlets’ Additional Licensing Scheme, but was not so licensed.[14]The Respondent accepted that during the Relevant Period they had failed to obtain an additional licence as required by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Additional Licensing Scheme. The Respondent accepted that the Applicants were living at the Property as their main residence and paying rent, meaning that there were three or more occupiers living as two or more households sharing basic facilities. The Respondent also accepted that accommodation constituted the only use of the Property.[15]Further, the Respondent accepted that they were in control/managing the Property.[16]Based on the Respondent’s position, the Tribunal considered the following provisions: The Law[17]Section 41 (1) Housing and Planning Act 2016 states: “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”.[18]Section 43(1) Housing and Planning Act 2016 states: “The First-tier Tribunal may make a rent repayment order if satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that a landlord has committed an offence to which this Chapter applies (whether or not the landlord had been convicted)”.[19]Section 40(3) Housing and Planning Act 2016 defines “an offence to which this Chapter applies” by reference to a table. The offence under section 72(1) Housing Act 2004 (control or management of unlicensed HMO) is within that table. Control or Management of Unlicensed HMO:[20]Section 72 (1) Housing Act 2004 provides: “A person commits an offence if he is a person having control of or managing an HMO which is required to be licenced under this Part but is not so licensed.” An HMO required to be licensed, is defined in Section 55(2) (a) Housing Act 2004 as: “any HMO in the [local housing] authority’s district which falls within any prescribed description of HMO”. Additional Licensing Scheme[21]The London Borough of Tower Hamlets exercised its powers under section 56 of the Housing Act 2004 and designated additional licensing for its district. This is described in paragraph 4 of the public notice, which states: “The designation shall apply to the entire district of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets as delineated and shaded on the map below, excluding the pre 2014 wards of Weavers, Whitechapel, Spitalfields and Banglatown”. The scheme came into force on 1 April 2019 and ceased on 31 March 2024.[22]The designation applied to all Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) as defined by section 254 of the Housing Act 2004 that are occupied by three or more persons comprising of two or more households.[23]Section 254 Housing Act 2004 states that a building or part of a building is an HMO if it meets either the standard test, self-contained flat test or the converted building test:[24]The Tribunal identified the standard test as the relevant test and this is defined by section 254(2) as: (2) A building or a part of a building meets the standard test if–(a) it consists of one or more units of living accommodation not consisting of a self-contained flat or flats;(b) the living accommodation is occupied by persons who do not form a single household;(c) the living accommodation is occupied by those persons as their only or main residence or they are to be treated as so occupying it;(d) their occupation of the living accommodation constitutes the only use of that accommodation;(e) rents are payable or other consideration is to be provided in respect of at least one of those persons' occupation of the living accommodation; and(f) two or more of the households who occupy the living accommodation share one or more basic amenities or the living accommodation is lacking in one or more basic amenities. Subsection (8) defines “basic amenities as a toilet, personal washing facilities or cooking facilities”. Exceptions under the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Additional Licensing Scheme[25]The exceptions set out within paragraph 5 and 6 of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Additional Licensing Scheme can be summarised as:• a house which is required to be licensed as a mandatory HMO;• a house subject to an interim or final management order;• a house subject to a temporary exemption;• an HMO that is exempt under Housing Act 2004; or• the property falls within certain stipulations regarding section 257 converted buildings. Person having Control of or Managing[26]The Section 72(1) offence is committed by the person having control of and/or managing the Property. Section 263(1) Housing Act 2004 defines “person having control” in relation to the premises as “the person who received the rack-rent of the premises (whether on his own account or as agent or trustee of another person) or would so receive it if the premises were let on a rack-rent”.[27]Section 263(3) defines “person managing” as: “ the person who, being an owner or lessee of the premises (a) receives (whether directly or through an agent or trustee) rents or other payments from (i) in the case of a house in multiple occupation, persons who are in occupation as tenants or licensees of parts of the premises”.[28]It is now well established that an RRO may only be made against the immediate landlord. Tribunal Determination - Section 72(1) Housing Act Offence[29]The Applicants submitted that the Property was a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) that was required to be licensed in accordance with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Additional Licensing Scheme, but was not so licensed. The Applicants produced an email at section G3 of their bundle dated 17 April 2024 from the Housing Licensing Department at the London Borough of Tower Hamlets which stated that there was no licence for the Property.[30]The Applicants’ evidence to the Tribunal was that the Property was occupied by the four Applicants during the Relevant Period. The Applicants confirmed that they were living in two or more separate households, paying rent to the Respondent, sharing cooking and washing facilities and occupying the Property as their main residence. Further, the Applicants confirmed that their occupation of the Property constituted the only use of the accommodation.[31]In terms of the periods of occupancy, Thomas Simpson stated that he had first moved into the Property on 29 November 2020 and had an initial 12 month tenancy agreement. He then continued to live at the Property under a periodic tenancy from 29 November 2021. Kaliya Georgieva and Ivaylo Atanasov set out in their witness statement (section T2 of the Applicants’ bundle), that they had moved into the Property at the end of August 2020 and had lived there since. Scott Lane told the Tribunal that he had moved into the Property on 23 March 2022 for 12 months. He confirmed that he had extended his tenancy for a further 12 months on 23 March 2023 and when his tenancy ended on 23 March 2024 he had remained at the Property on what he described as a “rolling contract”.[32]The Applicants produced bank statements within their bundle to show that monthly rent was paid to the Respondent.[33]The Respondent accepted that the Property was required to be licensed under the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Additional Licensing Scheme but was not so licensed for the Relevant Period. Further the Respondent accepted that Expedius Properties was in control of and was managing the Property (as defined in section 263 Housing Act 2004).[34]The Tribunal is satisfied that the Property fell within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Additional Licensing designation as the Property was not within the pre 2014 wards of Weavers, Whitechapel, Spitalfields and Banglatown. The Tribunal is also satisfied that none of the exemptions, as set out at paragraph 5 and 6 of the scheme, were applicable to the Property, namely it was not a house which was required to be licensed as a mandatory HMO; it was not a house subject to an interim or final management order; it did not have a temporary exemption or an exemption under Housing Act 2004; and the Property did not fall within certain stipulations regarding section 257 converted buildings. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied based on the evidence produced by the Applicants and the admission of the Respondent that the Property did not have a licence during the Relevant Period.[35]Further, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Applicants and the admission of the Respondent that the Applicants lived at the Property in two or more households as their main residence during the Relevant Period. The Tribunal finds that the Applicants paid rent and shared a kitchen and washing facilities. Further, the Tribunal finds that the occupation of the Property as living accommodation constituted the only use of that accommodation. The Tribunal therefore finds beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent committed the offence under section 72(1) Housing Act 2004. Statutory Defence – Section 72(4) Housing Act 2004 and Reasonable Excuse Section 72(5)[36]The Tribunal considered section 72(4) Housing Act 2004 which provides: “In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1) [offence of failing to obtain an HMO licence] it is a defence that, at the material time –(a) a notification had been duly given in respect of the house under section 62(1), or(b) an application for a licence had been duly made in respect of the house under section 63, and that notification or application was still effective”…[37]The Tribunal did not have before it any evidence that the Respondent had a defence under section 72(4)(a) Housing Act 2004. Further, the Respondent confirmed that the application for a licence was made on 14 May 2024, after the Relevant Period, and therefore 72(4)(b) was not applicable.[38]The Tribunal considered whether the Respondent had a reasonable excuse under section 72(5). The Respondent confirmed that they had made a mistake and did not intentionally breach the licensing conditions. The Respondent confirmed that they had made an application for a licence once they were aware of the requirement. The Respondent accepted that this did not amount to a reasonable excuse and instead asked the Tribunal to consider, as mitigation, the fact that they had made a licence application. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s position and considers their mitigation below.[39]The Tribunal therefore does not find on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent had a defence. Should the Tribunal Make an RRO?[40]Section 43 Housing and Planning Act 2016 provides that the Tribunal may make a RRO if it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed. The decision to make a RRO award is therefore discretionary. However, because the offence was established the Tribunal finds no reason why it should not make an RRO in the circumstances of this application. Ascertaining the Whole of the Rent for the Relevant Period[41]The Applicants set out the maximum rent claimed for the Relevant Period) as follows: Name Period Rent Paid Total Thomas Simpson 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024£1,100 per month £13,200 Scott Lane 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024£875 per month £10,500 Kaliya Georgieva and Ivaylo Atanasov 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024£1,100 per month £13,200[42]The amount of rent paid was not in dispute. Deductions for Utility Payments that Benefit the Tenant[43]When determining the amount of a RRO, the Tribunal has a discretion whether or not to make a deduction for utility payments. Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 confirmed that it will usually be appropriate to deduct a sum representing utilities.[44]The Respondent set out at page 17 of their bundle details of the electricity, gas and internet costs that the Respondent had paid for the Property. The total costs for the Relevant Period were as follows:a. Electricity - £761.24b. Gas - £1,268.39c. Internet - £474[45]The Respondent included at pages 35 to 63 relevant bills for gas, electricity and internet.[46]The Respondent confirmed that there was a cap on the amount that tenants can consume for utility bills. This meant that a fixed amount for utility payments was included within the rent; but, if the utility bills for the Property exceeded the set amount, the Applicants would be liable for the amount above the cap. This was set out at pages 30 to 32 of the Respondent’s bundle. However, the Respondent confirmed that no action had been taken to reclaim any amounts from the Applicants and therefore the Respondent had made all of the utility payments.[47]The Tribunal therefore finds that the Respondent made payments for utilities that benefitted the Applicants and determines that a deduction for utility payments should be made.[48]The Tribunal notes that during the Relevant Period there were four people living at the Property in has calculated the yearly amount paid by the Respondents and then divided this by four people. The Tribunal determines that £625 per person should be deducted from the total rent to take into account the utility payments made by the Respondent. Determining the Seriousness of the Offence to Ascertain the Starting Point[49]The Tribunal has had to consider the seriousness of the offence compared to other types of offences for which a RRO could be made, and also as compared to other examples of the same offence.[50]In determining the seriousness of the offence, the Tribunal adopted Judge Cooke’s analysis in Acheampong v Roman [2022] that the seriousness of the offence could be seen by comparing the maximum sentences upon conviction for each offence. Using this hierarchical analysis, the relevant offence of having control or managing an unlicensed house would generally be less serious. However, the Tribunal had to consider the circumstances of this particular case as compared to other examples of the same offence. Seriousness of Offence and Conduct of Landlord and Tenant[51]The Respondent told the Tribunal that they acknowledged that the application for a licence was submitted to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets later than required, but stated that the application was made once the Respondent became aware of the need for it. Their HMO licence application was submitted on 14 May 2024, which the Respondent asked the Tribunal to note was before the date the Applicants made their application for a RRO to the Tribunal. For completeness, the Respondent included a copy of the application they had submitted to London Borough of Tower Hamlets at pages 13 to 14 of their bundle.[52]The Respondent stated in mitigation that they had not applied for an Additional Licence because of a genuine misunderstanding as to the specific licensing regime imposed by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.[53]The Respondent asked the Tribunal to consider as mitigation that the Property was maintained to a very high standard and that all bedrooms exceeded 10 metres square, and that the Property met HMO standards with regards to sufficient sanitary, cooking and living amenities.[54]Further, the Respondent submitted at pages 64 to 78 of their bundle receipts showing that the Respondent paid £24 per fortnight (£672 per year) for a cleaning service at the Property.[55]The Respondent submitted that the rent charged was fair and reasonable and that it would be manifestly unjust for the Applicants to be awarded a RRO in the full amount as they had benefited from the Property and incurred no demonstratable loss or hardship.[56]The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s mitigation that the failure to obtain a licence was because of a genuine mistake. Further, the Tribunal accepts that the Respondent had made an application for a licence as soon as they were aware that it was needed. The Tribunal finds this to be a mitigating factor. The Tribunal was asked to consider the following specific issues: Fire Safety[57]The Respondent submitted that smoke alarms were installed in all bedrooms and communal areas, that all bedroom doors were certified fire doors and that a heat blanket was available in the kitchen.[58]The Applicants stated in their response to the Respondent’s evidence that there was a smoke alarm in the hallway but there were no smoke alarms in the bedrooms. The Applicants also stated that there was no fire extinguisher or heat blanket at the Property and that Scott Lane had purchased a carbon monoxide monitor.[59]The Tribunal was not provided with specific evidence as to the particular requirements of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and notes that every local authority will have differing requirements. However, the Tribunal notes that both parties accepted that there were smoke alarms at the Property and the fact that the bedroom doors were fire doors was not challenged by the Applicants. Rent Payments[60]The Respondent submitted that the Applicants were repeatedly late in paying rent, which the Respondent stated caused considerable inconvenience and disruption to the financial management of the Property. Further, the Respondent submitted that failing to pay on time constituted a breach of the Applicants’ tenancy agreements. At pages 28 to 29, the Respondent produced a table which they said showed the number of times rent was paid late by the Applicants.[61]In reply, the Applicants stated that there had been a misunderstanding when rent was increased. Additionally, the Applicants submitted that the Respondent had used repeated and intrusive messages, including missed calls, voicemails and threats of unannounced visits when the rent was paid late.[62]At page 16 of their response to the Respondent’s evidence, the Applicants stated that the Respondent had given notice of an intention to attend the Property in relation to rent, with no written 24-hour notice or consent from the tenant. The Applicants then provided a one sentence quote from an email as follows: “Email (May 2024) “I’ll be coming to the flat tomorrow to have a discussion with you on how we can make things smoother going forward”[63]The full email was not provided to the Tribunal and so the Tribunal was not provided with any context. Further the Applicants did not provide this evidence in the form of a witness statement. The Tribunal therefore attaches limited weight to this.[64]Additionally at page 18 of the Applicant’s reply, the Applicants provided a transcript of a WhatsApp conversation which the Applicants submitted showed the Respondent chasing rent payments inappropriately. There was no statement to confirm the accuracy of the transcript and the original messages were not included in the bundle. Further, the Tribunal does not accept that the WhatsApp messages show that the Respondent has acted inappropriately. The messages appear to show that rent had not been paid and the Respondent had attempted to contact the Applicants to ask why payment has not been made.[65]The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent and finds that on occasions the Applicants made late payments of rent, which was not in accordance with the tenancy agreement and would have caused inconvenience and additional work for the Respondent. Lack of Hot Water at the Property for a Period of Time[66]The Applicants set out in their Response to the Respondent’s evidence details of an issue with the hot water/boiler at the Property (pages 3 to 16). The Applicants stated that they were without consistent hot water for eight weeks, with a delay in engineers being sent to the Property and delays in the matter being resolved. The Applicants stated that the Respondent deferred responsibility to the landlord and had abdicated their managing role, leaving the Applicants without timely professional intervention.[67]The Respondent submitted that the hot water/boiler issue was promptly and repeatedly addressed, with multiple engineer visits and costs incurred by the Respondent. The Respondent submitted a timeline at F1.1 (page 82 to 83 of the Respondent’s bundle) along with WhatsApp chat messages to corroborate this timeline (pages 84 t0 93 of the Respondent’s bundle). Additionally, the Respondent produced invoices from engineers who attended the Property (pages 94 to 98 of the Respondent’s bundle).[68]Parties agreed that a boiler and heating issue was reported by Ivaylo Atanasov using the Fixflo system on 13 April 2024. An engineer had attended the Property on 16 April 2024 and completed a fix but the problem had reoccurred and an engineer did not attend until 18 April 2024. It was the Applicant’s position that this initial delay to the issues being looked at was not acceptable. On 25 April 2024, the Applicants had reported that the boiler had failed again, and repairs were scheduled for 27 April 2024 once the replacement parts that had been ordered had arrived.[69]Following this, the hot water had been restored; however, there had been another failure on 30 April 2024 and so the Respondent had sent an electrician to the Property on 1 May 2024. The Respondent had referred the matter to the superior landlord, who had decided to install a new boiler. The new boiler had been installed on 17 May 2024. The Applicants stated that the problems had persisted and a further issue had been reported by Scott Lane on 20 May 2024. The Respondent stated that an electrician had attended the Property on 7 June 2024 to fix the circuit that had caused the boiler to trip. The Applicant stated that on 10 June 2024 the Respondent had confirmed that the electrical issue had been resolved and the boiler was functioning without fault.[70]The Tribunal notes that this incident occurred outside the Relevant Period and was after the Respondent had made an application for a licence. In any event, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent and finds that the Respondent acted professionally and diligently to resolve the issue with the boiler and hot water. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent acted promptly when the issue was reported to them and that any delay was caused because of factors beyond the Respondent’s control such as needing consent from the superior landlord or needing to engage specialist contractors, who had limited availability. Failure to Provide Gas Safety Certificate and Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR)[71]The Applicants told the Tribunal that despite multiple requests, they were not provided with a valid Gas Safety Certificate and EICR. The Applicants set out at pages 16 and 20 of their Response to the Respondent’s evidence a WhatsApp message dated 5 June 2024 which asked for these certificates. The Tribunal does not accept that this demonstrates multiple requests. However, the Tribunal does accept that the Respondent did not provide the Gas Safety Certificates and EICR at the commencement of the tenancy.[72]The Respondent submitted that gas and electrical safety inspections were regularly undertaken. The Respondent included within their bundle a Gas Safety Certificate and Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR). At page 79 of the Respondent’s bundle was an EICR showing that inspection and testing had been carried out on 7 February 2023 and that the overall assessment had been satisfactory. At page 80 of the Respondent’s bundle was an EPC issued on 12 December 2024 showing a rating of C. At page 81 of the Respondent’s bundle was a gas safety record dated 17 May 2024.[73]With regards to the EICR, the Applicants stated at page 21 of their Response to the Respondent’s reply that they were not provided with a copy of the EICR but upon reviewing a copy which was sent to them by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, they noted that the inspection photographs attached to the EICR were for a different property. The Applicants therefore stated that this brought into question the authenticity of the EICR. The Applicants did not provide the Tribunal with any further evidence to support their claim, particularly by way of witness evidence.[74]The Tribunal therefore finds that, whilst the Applicants were not provided with the relevant documents when their tenancy began, the Respondent has provided safety certificates for the Property within their bundle. Broken Fans, Including Kitchen Extractor Fan[75]The Applicants told the Tribunal that they used the Fixflo system to report issues to the Respondent and that many of these issues, including the broken kitchen extractor fan, remained unresolved. Regarding the broken kitchen fan, the Applicants stated that this was reported over a year ago and remained unresolved.[76]The Respondent told the Tribunal that they responded promptly to any issues that they were made aware of and that the Applicants did not always use the Fixflo system to report issues.[77]The Tribunal was not provided with sufficient evidence, in particular dates of incidents, to consider the issue of the broken fan further. The Applicants provided a Fixflo report at page 26 of their bundle, but the year for the complaint was omitted.[78]The Tribunal notes that the Respondent had in place a system of issues at the Property to be reported. 24 Hours’ Notice Not Always Given by the Respondent[79]The Applicants stated in their Response to the Respondent’s evidence that the Respondent had entered or attempted to enter the Property multiple times without giving the legally required 24 hours written notice. At pages 22 to 23 of the Response to the Respondent’s evidence, the Applicants included a table which they submitted showed four occasions when the Respondent had attended the Property without giving 24 hours’ notice.[80]The incident on 27 February 2025 appeared to relate to a leak which was likely to require urgent attention. The message on 13 June 2024 appeared to be a request for access; however, there was no context provided. The entry for 26 October 2024 appeared to show that the Applicants had agreed access but had complained about noisy work in the early morning. The message which the Applicants relied on appeared to have been sent by Kaliya Georgieva and read as follows: “Hi Rotimi, next time you try to schedule an inspection, please do it in a sensible hour during the day. If I knew that they will make so much noise at 9am in the morning, I would not have agreed. They are probably disturbing the whole building”[81]The message showed that the Applicants had agreed to the visit and therefore the Tribunal does not find that the Respondent failed to give notice of entry.[82]The final message included in this section by the Applicants appeared to be related to a visit by a cleaner to the Property; in the message, the Respondent asked if there was anyone home. Again, the context was not provided and the Tribunal was just presented with an extract of a message.[83]The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence the Applicants presented to the Tribunal that the Respondent failed to give adequate notice. Further, the incidents all related to a period outside the Relevant Period at a time after the Respondent had applied for an Additional Licence. Contractors Failing to Attend the Property[84]At page 23 of the Response to the Respondent’s evidence, the Applicants included a table that they said showed when contractors had failed to attend the Property or attended later than scheduled. The incidents the Applicants referenced ranged from 6 September 2024 to 26 March 2025, which was outside the Relevant Period and after the Respondent had applied for an Additional Licence.[85]In any event, whilst the Tribunal understands that it would be frustrating if contractors did not attend, the Tribunal does not find this to be an aggravating factor in terms of the RRO award. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent arranged contactors to remedy issues at the property and to complete inspections within the Property. Condition of the Property[86]The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s mitigation that the Property was of good quality. The Tribunal had the benefit of photographs that were provided by the Applicants showing the rooms at the Property (pages 36, 58 and 87 of the Applicants’ bundle). The photographs showed well maintained rooms. Financial Circumstances of the Respondent[87]The Respondent submitted that they had incurred substantial operational costs totalling £30,460 in providing and maintaining the Property. This had resulted in the Respondent’s total net profit for the Property for the Relevant Period amounting to approximately £6,000. The Respondent set out this calculation at page 17 of the Respondent’s bundle.[88]Further, the Respondent submitted that the Respondent’s net annual profit was £23,907 for the year ended 31 January 2024. The Respondent included unaudited financial statements for the year ended 31 January 2024 at pages 18 to 19 of the Respondent’s bundle. The Respondent submitted that an award of the nature of the maximum amount that the Applicants were seeking by way of RRO, £36,900, would have a severe financial impact on the Respondent and could result in them being forced to cease trading.[89]The Respondent also included at page 20 of their bundle bank statements showing the regular payments they made to the superior landlord in accordance with their contractual agreement. The Respondent confirmed that they were a small business for which any RRO would have a big impact, describing themselves as in the middle between the superior landlord and the tenants.[90]The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent as to their financial circumstances and has taken this into account when determining the amount of RRO award made. Whether Respondent has been Convicted of a Relevant Offence[91]The Respondent confirmed and the Tribunal accepts that they had not been convicted of any offence within the table at section 40(3) Housing and Planning Act 2016. Respondent as a Professional Landlord[92]The Tribunal finds that the Respondent was a professional landlord and should have been aware of licensing obligations. Quantum Decision[93]Taking all the factors outlined above into account and based on the findings made by the Tribunal, the Tribunal determines that a RRO of 45% should be made in favour of the Applicants.[94]The Tribunal finds that the Property was unlicenced for a significant period of time, noting that Scott Lane moved into the Property in March 2022 when the other Applicants were already living at the Property and that a licensing application was not made until 14 May 2024. The Applicants were not provided with a gas safety certificate, EICR, EPC or how to rent guide when they moved into the Property. Further, the Respondent was a professional landlord and therefore should have been aware of the licensing obligations.[95]On the other hand, the Tribunal has considered the mitigation of the Respondent, in particular, the Respondent accepted the licensing offence and made an application for a licence once aware of the breach. The Property was well maintained, and the Respondent was responsive to issues that needed to be addressed. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent that, whilst rent was paid, it was sometimes paid late. Further, the Tribunal has taken into consideration that the Respondent does not have any relevant previous convictions. Additionally, the Tribunal has considered the financial circumstances of the Respondent. This is set out above, but in particular the Tribunal notes that the Respondent has provided the Tribunal with accounts to demonstrate their financial position.[96]As a result, the Tribunal reduces the award from its starting point of approximately 65% to 45%.[97]The Tribunal therefore makes RROs as follows: Thomas Simpson Total Claim - £13,200 Less utilities - £ 625 45% of which gives a total amount of £5,658.75 Kaliya Georgieva and Ivaylo Atanasov Total Claim - £13,200 Less utilities - £ 625 x 2 = £1,250 45% of which gives a total amount of £5,377.50 Scott Lane Total Claim - £10,500 Less utilities - £ 625 45% of which gives a total amount of £4,443.75[98]The Tribunal orders that payment be made in full within 28 days. Application Fees[99]The Applicants asked the Tribunal to make an order requiring the Respondent to refund the fees that the Applicants had paid to the Tribunal.[100]The Respondent submitted that this order should not be made and asked the Tribunal to take into account their mitigation.[101]Given that the Tribunal has made a RRO, the Tribunal exercises its discretion and orders that the Respondent must reimburse the Applicants with the amount that has been paid in fees to the Tribunal, namely the application fee (£110) and the hearing fee (£220). This amount shall be paid within 28 days. Judge Bernadette MacQueen Date: 2 June 2025 Annex – Rights of Appeal[1]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 at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case.[2]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.[3]If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request to an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.[4]The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (ie 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.