Ms. Bisola OladipoApplicantMs Eva Sherratt-Justice for Tenants Mr Simon ChanRespondent
Before
Judge Daley
Members
Mr Steve Wheeler-Professional MemberDate 8 June 2026Hearing 2026-05-28Property: 66 Settlers Court, 17 Newport Avenue, London E14 2DGType of application: Application for Rent Repayment Order by Tenant Sections 40, 41, 43 & 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016
DECISION
I) The Tribunal finds that the subject property met all the criteria to be licensed under the Additional Licensing scheme operated in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, as an HMO under section 254 Housing Act 2004 and was not subject to any statutory exemption. II) The Tribunal finds that the offence of having an unlicensed HMO was committed to the required standard of proof, that is proof beyond reasonable doubt. III) The Tribunal is satisfied that grounds exist to make a rent repayment order against the Respondent. IV) The Tribunal makes a Rent repayment order in the sum of £3000.00 for the rent paid by the applicant for the period 21 June 2024 to 28 December 2024. (minus the period 30 November- 7 December 2024) V) The Tribunal makes an order for the reimbursement of the application and hearing fee in the sum of £343.00. Introduction[1]This is an application for a Rent repayment Order under section 41 of the Housing & Planning Act 2016. The Application is made on the grounds that the Landlord had control and management of an unlicensed HMO, that was subject to an Additional licensing requirement under Section 55 of the Housing act and was not licenced in breach of Section 72 (1) of the Housing Act 2004.[2]The applicant made an application for a rent repayment order on 16 June 2025, for the periods 21.06.24 to 28.12.2024.[3]The Tribunal issued Directions on 14 November 2025, setting out how the parties should prepare for the hearing. Following a listing questionnaire, completed by the Applicant’s representative, this matter was set down for an in-person hearing on 28 May 2026. Property Details[4]The property which is subject to this application was a four-bedroom flat with a shared kitchen and bathroom, with one room being an en-suite, located on the second floor of a block of flats.[5]The Tribunal did not undertake an inspection of the property and made no assumptions about its current condition or regarding the accommodation. The Hearing[6]The hearing of this matter was held at the First-Tier Property Tribunal Alfred Place, London. The hearing was attended by the applicant Ms Oladipo and her representative Ms Sherratt.[7]The Respondent was not in attendance. Neither was there any representation received on his behalf. Preliminary Matters[8]Ms Sherratt made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the respondent Mr Chan. She told the Tribunal that the Respondent had not engaged with the proceedings or responded to any contact from the applicant’s representative. She told the Tribunal that unfortunately the hearing bundle had not been served at the respondent’s address which was the subject property. However, it had been served at the email address of the managing agents. RFLL Limited.[9]Ms Sherratt told the Tribunal that she had also telephoned the managing agents offices using the telephone number from the tenancy agreement. She had spoken to a woman who confirmed that the managing agents still managed the property on behalf of the landlord, although she had asked them about the proceedings, she had not received a response. In answer to questions from the Tribunal, she confirmed that the emailed bundle had not produced an email stating that it was undelivered.[10]She asked that the Tribunal proceed in the absence of the respondent. The Decision of the Tribunal on the application to proceed in the absence of the respondent[11]Tribunal in reaching its decision considered Rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013(“The Procedure Rules”) which states-: If a party fails to attend a hearing the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing if the Tribunal—(a)is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing; and(b)considers that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.[12]The Tribunal noted that both the claimant and respondent were notified on 15 January 2026 that this matter was set down for hearing on 28 May 2026. The notification was sent to the address listed in the tenancy agreement as the landlord’s address. The Tribunal considered that although the bundle was not sent to the landlord’s address, it was emailed to the managing agents’ email address and that Ms. Sherratt contacted them on 26 May to alert them to the hearing. She also told the tribunal that she has also tried calling the landlord’s number which appeared to be out of service.[13]The Tribunal in reaching its decision also considered Rule 3 of the procedure rules, in particular the requirement to deal with cases fairly and justly in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties and of the Tribunal.[14]It noted that there would be some disadvantage to the respondent in not being present or able to make representations; however, he had not responded to either the Applicant’s representative or correspondence from the Tribunal and had not complied with the directions.[15]The Tribunal considered that if this matter were adjourned or postponed, there was no information before it that this would be a proportionate step that would secure the attendance of the respondent; it would also have the impact of delaying this case where the respondent had over 5 months to provide a response.[16]Accordingly, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was in the interest of justice to proceed in the absence of the respondent and to proceed with the hearing. Relevant Law Section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 A person commits an offence if he is a person having control of or managing an HMO which is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 61(1)) but is not so licensed. Section 41(1) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the 2016 Act) provides: 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. Section 40(5) of the 2016 Act lists 7 categories of offence and offence no 6 refers to Control or management of an unlicensed house. Category 2 refers to eviction or harassment of occupiers. The First-tier Tribunal may make a rent repayment order under Section 43 of the 2016 Act or 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). Section 44 of the 2016 Act sets out the amount of order: (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. Under Section 44(4) the Tribunal in determining the amount the tribunal must, in particular take account of (a)the conduct of the landlord and tenant (b) the financial circumstances of the landlord and (c) whether the landlord has at any time been convicted of an offence to which this chapter applies The Applicants’ Submissions[17]The Tribunal heard from the applicant Ms Oladipo who set out the background to her occupation of the premises, how she had found the premises, her decision to move in and difficulties that she had establishing a moving in date after she had paid her deposit.[18]In her statement she set out a history of occupancy throughout her time at the premises she stated that -: Occupancy timeline When I moved in on 21st June 2024, the flat was fully occupied by five tenants across four rooms, as one room was shared by a couple. On 7th December 2024, Oshin and Irishka moved in, occupying the Ensuite and Ash’s room respectively .• Room 1: Pooja - Already residing at the property when I moved in and remained in the property for the entire duration of my tenancy.• Room 2: Pho and his wife (Couple) - Already residing at the property when I moved in and they vacated the property in September 2024. They were later replaced by Oshin, an Asian girl who moved in 7th December 2024, and she continued to live at the property after I moved out... shows the room being scheduled for a viewing after they vacated.• Room 3: Ash - Already residing at the property when I moved in and he vacated the property at the end of November 2024... shows Ash asking which room is being viewed (his one or the ensuite room), which indicates Ash's preparation to vacate the property. He was later replaced by Irishka, an Asian girl who moved in on 7th December 2024, and she continued to live at the property after I moved out. Multiple exhibits shows Oshin and Irishka in the property group chat.• Room 4: Myself - I moved in on 21st June 2024 and occupied this room throughout my tenancy. I moved out on 28th December 2024.[19]The Tribunal was referred to a tenancy agreement, and details of the rent which was paid which was £750 PCM. She told the Tribunal that this timeline of occupation continued throughout her tenancy save for a brief period between 30 November –7 December when the occupancy dropped down to two people . In answer to questions she provided details of the rent that had been paid by her.[20]Ms Oladipo was asked about the conditions in the property during her occupation She told the Tribunal that she did not receive a Gas Safety Certificate/How to Rent Guide/Energy or Performance Certificate/Electrical Safety Certificate. On entering occupation.[21]She was also concerned that there was no Fire safety equipment, within the property, although there was a fire alarm in the kitchen this did not appear to be working as it was taped over with sellotape. On one occasion when smoke filled the kitchen it did not work and as there was no smoke alarm in the hallway the property had filled with smoke and tenants had to open their windows, as the kitchen was internal and lacked windows.[22]She told the Tribunal that when she was shown her room the door lock appeared to be broken. In response, Nelly from the managing agents told her that they were going to install an additional lock on the door which had been done. However, this was not satisfactory as on one occasion, she stepped out of the room in the early hours of 15 September 2024, to use the bathroom and when she returned dressed only in her towel, the door was locked from the inside. It appeared that the old lock had engaged. As there were no emergency contact details for the managing agents or the landlord she had approached the building concierge for assistance. Photographs were provided within the bundle of the broken door lock.[23]Ms. Oladipo told the Tribunal that between 11 November 2024 until around 20 November the shower had been unusable as it appeared to be producing only hot water, and the shower was extremely hot. This had been reported by one of the tenants on the group WhatsApp messaging to the managing agents. The applicant had been away from the property at the time and had assumed that it had been repaired. On attempting to use the shower on 17 November, she almost scalded herself. She had no access to a shower until it was fixed on or around 20 November.[24]She also told the Tribunal that the hygiene conditions at the property were very poor. This appeared to be because of previous tenants leaving food in the fridge and kitchen where no one took responsibility to dispose of or cooperate to clean the property. She had raised this via WhatsApp with the managing agents, and had asked them to inspect the property, which they had failed to do. Although they had periodically arranged for a cleaner to come in at extra costs, the cleaner was unable to dispose of any unclaimed property.[25]Ms. Oladipo told the Tribunal of an incident in which the washing machine door had become jammed whilst she was undertaking her washing, although this had occurred, and had been reported on 21 October 2024, it was not repaired until 1 December when her clothes which had been stuck in the machine, had been disposed of without her permission.[26]Ms. Oladipo told the Tribunal that due to the conditions at the property, she had decided not to renew her short hold assured tenancy and had informed the managing agents of this one month before the tenancy ended in November 2024. However, her request for the return of her deposit had been ignored.[27]She told the Tribunal that the occupants within the premises did not form a household and were all unrelated and lived separately and independently although they politely coexisted.[28]In her witness statement she set out that “After my tenancy ended, I contacted the management team to request the return of my deposit. Despite multiple emails and messages, I received no reply. No explanation or acknowledgement was provided, and the deposit was never returned. Frustrated by the lack of response, I contacted Justice for Tenants, who informed me they would first need to check whether the landlord held a valid HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) licence. It was through this check that I learned the property was not licensed...” Submissions of the Respondent[29]There were no submissions from the respondent or any representations on his behalf. Closing Submissions of the Applicant[30]Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal had received written Skeleton Argument on behalf of the Applicant. In her submissions Ms Sherratt set out that-: The rented property was situated within an additional licensing area as designated by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets [AB p78]. The additional licensing scheme came into force on 1 April 2024 and shall cease to have effect on 31 March 2029. The additional licensing scheme covers the entire district of the London Borough of Tower Hamlet, as delineated on the designation map [AB p82]. The premise met all the criteria to be licensed under the said designation, and it does not qualify for any licensing exemptions. c. During the relevant period of 21 June 2024 – 28 December 2024, the subject property was occupied by at least three persons living in two or more separate households and occupying the property as their main residence, meaning the property was subject to additional licensing conditions. d. The appropriate HMO licence was not held during the relevant period.[31]In her Skeleton Argument she set out that the respondent Mr Chan was shown in the land registry as the owner of the property, (the entry was included in the bundle) and that the respondent was believed to have been a person managing the subject property as defined by section 263(2) HA 2004.[32]Ms Sherratt told the Tribunal that if the Tribunal was satisfied that the offence had been committed in accordance with Section 72(1) of the Housing Act, then the Tribunal should make a Rent Repayment Order.[33]She submitted that in accordance with Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC) the Tribunal should make an order for the total amount of rent which was paid by the Applicant. It was accepted by the Applicant that the rent had included utilities and that this was subject to deduction, however without information concerning the amount that had been paid by the landlord, she submitted that the amount was subject to the Tribunal’s discretion.[34]She referred the Tribunal to Daff v Gyalui [2023] UKUT 134 (LC and Newell v Abbott [2024] UKUT 181 (LC) as guidance on assessing the seriousness of the offence. In her written Skeleton Argument, she set out details of the failings of the landlord and the unsatisfactory condition at the premises, submitting that the breaches were serious and that this should be reflected in the rent repayment order made.[35]Ms Sherratt also submitted that the Tribunal should make an order reimbursing both the application and hearing fees. Tribunal Decision Whether an offence has been committed by the respondent?[36]The Tribunal in reaching its decision approach its decision by considered the following three issues (i)whether the offence under Section 72 (1) of the Housing Act 2004 Act was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and if so, (ii) Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to make a rent repayment order. (iii) The Determination of the amount of any order. Whether an offence has been committed by the respondent?[37]The Tribunal in reaching its decision was satisfied on the evidence before it that the offence had been committed beyond a reasonable doubt.[38]In reaching this decision it considered the email sent on behalf of the Applicant to the local authority. The email dated 5 February 2025, was sent to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets who were responsible for the additional licensing scheme, in the area where the subject property was situated.[39]In the email the Applicant’s representative asked for confirmation of whether the property was currently licenced under the licensing schemes, had ever been licensed, or whether there was a licence application in progress or whether a statutory exemption from licensing had been granted.[40]In an email reply of the same date sent by Housing Licensing Support Services, the local authority, confirmed that the property was unlicensed, that there had never been a license and that the property was not exempt from the licensing requirements. The email also confirmed that there was no current application for a licence.[41]The Tribunal was satisfied that the property was unlicensed on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Whether to make an order against the respondent[42]The Tribunal next considered whether to make an order against the respondent[43]The Tribunal reminded itself of the statutory law referred to above and the case law referred to by the applicant. The Tribunal noted the purpose of making an order was to act as deterrent to the landlord against the commission of such an offence.[44]It noted that an offence of failing to license a HMO under an additional licensing scheme was a potentially serious breach, due to the fact that the LA could not provide oversight of unlicensed properties, and this gave rise to the potential for breaches of legislation and regulations which were designed to protect the health and safety of the tenants who occupied such properties.[45]The Tribunal also had no information from the landlord, and given this, was concerned that the property was still being let, and that there was a lack of regard both from the landlord and the managing agents of these proceedings.[46]It was satisfied that it was necessary and proportionate to make a rent repayment order which marks the seriousness of the offence which has been committed by the landlord in failing to apply for a licence for the periods in issue. The Determination of the amount of order?[47]The Tribunal next considered the level of rent repayment order to make; it took account of the utility bills which were payable by the respondent, although it had no information before it on the exact sums paid, it took into account that the applicant had access to heating and hot water and internet access. It considered that it was appropriate to make a deduction of £40.00 per month for these services in the total sum of £240.00.[48]The Tribunal noted the total claimable sum paid by the tenant was £4459.10. It noted that there were complaints about the property and that although there was some tardiness on the part of the managing agents, there had been responses to issues raised. It noted that the poor hygiene although not the applicant's fault had been contributed to by the actions of the tenants rather than directly caused by the fault of the landlord.[49]It was satisfied that to reflect its findings, that it was appropriate to make an order for a repayment of 70% of the rent which was paid minus the £240.00 for utility bills. In reaching this decision it took account of the conditions which were described by the applicant and the breaches by the landlord, which it assessed as serious but not severe. The Tribunal considered that the total sum it arrived at of £2953.37 should be rounded up to £3000.00[50]The Tribunal makes a rent repayment order of £3000.00[51]The Tribunal makes an order in respect of reimbursement of the hearing and application fees in the sum of £340.00. Signed: Judge Daley Dated: 8 June 2026 Right to Appeal[52]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.[53]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.[54]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.[55]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.