Flat 2, 49a, Salisbury Hall Gardens, London E4 8SA LON/00BH/HMF/2024/0616
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No LON/00BH/HMF/2024/0616
Between
Naheed RazzaqApplicant(1) Ned Dorontic (2) C & N Smart Solutions LimitedRespondent
Before
Judge TuejeMs R Kershaw BScMr Zitron (counsel) for the ApplicantMs Baig (counsel) Application for a rent repayment order by the tenants: sections 40, 41, 43 and for the RespondentVenue 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LRDate 29 October 2025Hearing 2025-09-02Property: London E4 8SAType of application: 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 Judge Tueje
DECISION
In this determination, statutory references relate to the Housing Act 2004 unless otherwise stated. Decisions of the Tribunal[1]The Application for a rent repayment order against the First Respondent is dismissed.[2]The Tribunal find that the Second Respondent did commit an offence under section 95(1) without reasonable excuse.[3]The Tribunal makes a rent repayment order against the Second Respondent, who is to pay the Applicant the sum of £8907.88 within 28 days of the date this Decision is sent to the parties.[4]The reasons for the Tribunal’s decisions are given below. The Application[1]This decision relates to an Application dated 12th August 2024 made under section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 for a rent repayment order.[2]The Applicant was the former tenant of Flat 2, 49a, Salisbury Hall Gardens, London E4 8SA (the “Property”), which is a 2-bedroom flat. The Application is made against Neb Dorontic and C & N Smart Solutions Limited, the First and Second Respondents respectively.[3]The Applicant is claiming a rent repayment order from 17th August 2022 to 17th August 2023. The amount originally claimed was £15,084.63 being the total rent paid during the period of the claim less Universal Credit received in July and August 2023.[4]By an order dated 19th March 2025, and subsequently amended on 19th June 2025, the Tribunal gave directions. It listed the final hearing on 2nd September 2025. The Parties’ Case The Applicant’s Case[5]The Applicant seeks a Rent Repayment Order in respect of her tenancy of Flat 2, 49A Salisbury Gardens, E4 8SA.[6]It is common ground that the Property is located within the London Bough of Waltham Forest. The Applicant states it is situated in the Valley ward of the borough.[7]She entered into a series of tenancy agreements in respect of the Property, the first began on 20th November 2017, at a monthly rent of £1,350.00, which increased to £1,500 from 20th April 2023.[8]The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of the written tenancy agreement dated 20th November 2018. By clause 7.9.2 the Applicant was responsible for paying for the utilities. We were also provided with a written tenancy dated 20th November 2019, in which clause 3.2 states the Applicant was responsible for utilities. There is a memorandum of extension dated 20th November 2020 confirming the tenancy is extended to 19th November 2021 on the same terms as the preceding tenancy agreement. All of these documents state Neb Dorontic and C&N Smart Solutions Ltd are the immediate landlords.[9]The Land Registry confirms C&N Smart Solutions Ltd is the sole registered owner of the property.[10]The Applicant states that during the course of her tenancy she discovered an application for a selective licence was made, but there had not been a licence for the entire duration of her tenancy.[11]She states the Property is in a selective licensing area designated by Waltham Forest Council. The scheme began on 1st May 2022 and ends on 30th April 2025, and except for the Hatch Lane and Endlebury wards, the designated area covers the whole borough.[12]The Applicant’s previous representatives made enquiries of Waltham Forest Council on 21st May 2024, and the Council confirmed it had received a licence application in respect of the Property on 18th August 2023.[13]Therefore, the Applicant states, the Property was unlicensed between 1st May 2022 and 18th August 2023.[14]The Applicant is employed by London Borough of Waltham Forest as a school administrator, but she confirms that during the tenancy she received Housing Benefit/Universal Credit rent contributions in July 2023 for £603.85, and in August 2023 £511.78.[15]The Applicant has provided a breakdown of the Universal Credit payments she received.[16]According to that breakdown, on 21st July 2023 she received (after being corrected) £1,333 representing: Standard single parent allowance £368.74 Dependent child £315.00 Child care costs £45.41 Total £729.15£1,333 received - £729.15 income element = £603.85 for housing costs[17]On 21st August 2023 she received £1,228 representing: Standard single parent allowance £368.74 Dependent child £315.00 Child care costs £32.79 Total £716.53£1,228 received - £716.53 income element = £511.47 for housing costs[18]In her witness statement the Applicant claims a rent repayment order for the period from 17th August 2022 to 17th August 2023, which she calculates to be 12 x £1,350.00 - £1,115.32 received from Universal Credit, so amounting to a rent repayment order of £15,084.37.[19]At the start of the final hearing, the Applicant corrected the amount of the rent repayment order being claimed, clarifying that the monthly rent was £1,350.00 until 20th April 2023 when it increased to £1,500.00. Ms Baig raised no objection to this correction.[20]Having considered the Applicant’s bank statements, we note the rent payments made during the period of the claim were as follows: 23rd August 2022£1,350.0022nd September 2022£1,350.0024th October 2022£1,350.0021st November 2022£1,350.0023rd December 2022£1,350.0021st January 2023£1,350.0022nd February 2023£1,350.0022nd March 2023£1,350.0026th April 2023£1,500.0024th May 2023£1,500.0025th June 2023£1,500.0025th July 2023£1,500.00 Total £16,800.00[21]The next rent payment was made by the Applicant on 23rd August 2023 for £1,500. However, this payment was made outside the period being claimed for. The Respondents’ Case[22]The Respondents’ statement was prepared by Mr Simon Le Blanc, the agent instructed to manage the Property.[23]He states the Second Respondent granted the Applicant a renewed tenancy agreement on 20 November 2020 for the Property, having first granted her a tenancy in 2017.[24]He states Nebosja Dorontic was incorrectly named as a joint landlord in the tenancy agreement due to an administrative error.[25]The tenancy was brought to an end by a court order for possession dated 2 May 2024, requiring the Applicant vacates the Property by 16 May 2024.[26]Mr Le Blanc’s witness statement continues, that the new Selective Licencing scheme took effect on 1st May 2022.[27]He also states: The Respondent applied for a Selective License on 18 August 2023. A Selective License for the Property is valid from 26 October 2023 to 25 October 2025. The License was made to C&N Smart Solutions Limited, the Second Respondent and sole landlord. The Application is seeking a Rent Repayment Order (“RRO”) for the rent paid between 16 August 2022 to 16 August 2023. Although the Respondent admits they did not have the required license for part of the Tenancy, they rectified this as soon as it came to their attention.[28]Therefore, the Respondent admits to there being a period during the operation of the selective licensing scheme when the Property was unlicenced, it’s claimed this was an isolated oversight due to receiving no notification of the scheme from the council. The Respondent argues the Applicant was not adversely affected by the failure to obtain a licence earlier, and she has delayed her claim to maximise the repayment amount to cover the period of the rent increase.[29]The statement continues that the Respondent is a responsible landlord who promptly addressed maintenance issues.[30]The Respondent questions the Applicant’s claim of receiving Housing Benefit, noting discrepancies in her bank statements and lack of employment evidence, and also questions the accuracy and source of Universal Credit breakdowns provided by the Applicant.[31]During the hearing Ms Baig’s cross examination focussed heavily on the Applicant’s financial circumstances, including the payments transferred by her two older daughters into her bank account which were described as rent on the bank transactions. The Applicant’s position was that because she is a single parent, her older daughters transferred money to her for housekeeping as contributions towards bills and other household expenses.[32]The Respondent argues any rent payment order should be minimal because on receiving notification that a licence was required it rectified the position by promptly applying for a licence. The Applicant’s Reply[33]The Applicant provided a second witness statement in reply, in which she stated the Respondents’ agent manages a large portfolio of properties, and claims the failure to apply for a selective licence in this case was an isolated incident, yet has provided no evidence to support this.[34]The Applicant seems to dispute the First Respondent being named as a landlord was an error, because she notes this error was repeated in every tenancy agreement and memorandum of extension.[35]The Applicant refers to her payslips, and a breakdown of her Universal Credit payments calculating the amount allocated to rent payments that has been supplied by the Department for Work and Pensions. These are exhibited to her second statement. The Tribunal notes that some of the Applicant’s payslips issued by Waltham Forest are also exhibited to this statement.[36]The Respondent’s bundle includes an accelerated possession order granted by the County Court at Edmonton on 1st May 2024 in favour of both Respondents, which requires the Applicant to give up possession of the Property within 14 days. The Applicant sets out her difficult personal circumstances in the witness statement, which she states were exacerbated by the Respondents’ recovering possession of the Property.[37]She adds that in breach of the tenancy agreement the Respondents failed to carry out repairs, resulting in damp and mould in the bedrooms and bathroom. She states this exacerbated her daughter’s asthma for which she is prescribed steroids. She refers to e-mails from Waltham Forest Council exhibited to her witness statement which deal with this. The e-mails are exchanges between the Applicant and the Ms Egbo, from the Council’s enforcement team, in which the latter seeks confirmation about whether the Repairs have been completed. The Applicant confirms that the bathroom ceiling was done, silicone fitted around the bath and sink, a fan was fitted in the living room and one bedroom was painted. The Hearing[38]As stated, the final hearing was on 2nd September 2025.[39]The parties did not request an inspection of the Property by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal did not consider one was necessary or proportionate.[40]The Tribunal was provided with the following documents:40.1 A 163-page bundle from the Applicants;40.2 A13-page witness statement and exhibits in reply from the Applicants; and40.3 A 250-page bundle from the Respondents.[41]The Applicant was represented by Mr Zitron, and she gave evidence in support of the Application. The Respondents were represented by Ms Baig; no one gave evidence at the hearing on behalf of the Respondents. The Issues[42]In light of the above, the issues for the Tribunal to determine are as follows:42.1 Whether either or both of the Respondents committed an offence under section 95(1) as a result of the following:(i) Being in control of or managing the Property;(ii) Whether a licence was required for the Property; and(iii) If so, whether there was a licence for the Property.42.2 If the elements of the offence at paragraphs 42.1(i) to 42.1(iii) above are met, during the period in which the offence was committed, did the Respondents have a defence to the commission of the offence under section 95(4)?42.3 If an offence has been committed, what was the whole of the rent paid during the period of the offence.42.4 Whether the Respondents had been responsible for the cost of any utilities at the Property.42.5 The severity of the offence.42.6 Any relevant conduct of the Respondents, their financial circumstances, whether they have any previous convictions of a relevant offence, and the conduct of the Applicant to which the Tribunal should have regard in exercising its discretion as to the amount of the rent repayment order. The Tribunal’s Decision and Reasons[43]The Tribunal reached its decision after considering the parties’ written evidence and the Applicant’s oral evidence, including documents referred to in that evidence, and taking into account its assessment of the evidence and documentation provided by the parties.[44]As appropriate, and where relevant to the Tribunal’s decision the evidence is referred to in the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision.[45]This determination does not refer to every matter raised by the parties, or every document the Tribunal reviewed or took into account in reaching its decision. However, this doesn't imply that any points raised or documents not specifically mentioned were disregarded. If a point or document was referred to in the evidence or submissions that was relevant to a specific issue, it was considered by the Tribunal.[46]The relevant legal provisions are set out in the Appendix to this decision. The offence under section 95(1) Housing Act 2004[47]The Tribunal is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all the elements of the offence under section 95(1) are proved against the First Respondent.[48]In particular, we are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the First Respondent is a person in control of or managing the Property.[49]By section 263(1) a person is in control of premises where they receive the rack-rent or would receive the rack-rent if the premises were let.[50]By section 263(3) a person is managing premises where that person is the owner or lessee of the premises and receives rent directly or indirectly through an agent.[51]We note the First Respondent is named on the tenancy agreement as one of the landlords, and we also note the possession order was granted in favour of the First Respondent as one of the claimants to the accelerated possession proceedings. However, an individual may be a landlord without being an owner or a lessee. In this case, Land Registry does not record the First Respondent as being an owner or lessee of the Property. This means there is insufficient evidence to satisfy us that the First Respondent is an owner or lessee so as to meet the criteria at section 263(3).[52]We have also not been provided with sufficient evidence that the First Respondent received the rent. The written tenancy agreement dated 20th November 2018 states the Applicant must pay rent to the landlord or the landlord’s agent. The agreement includes bank details for payment, but it does not specify whether those are the agent’s bank details or the landlord’s bank details. As to the written tenancy agreement dated 20th November 2019, it states the Applicant must pay rent on the days and in the manner specified by the Landlord. However, it gives no other information regarding to whom the rent is to be paid.[53]In the circumstances, absent any direct evidence that the First Respondent received the rack-rent, we find the Applicant has failed to discharge the burden of proving this element of the offence against the First Respondent.[54]As to the Second Respondent we are satisfied that it is the person (or legal entity) managing the Property as defined by section 263(3). That is because Land Registry shows the Second Respondent is the lessee. As with the First Respondent, we have no direct evidence that the Second Respondent receives the rent. However, Mr Le Blanc’s evidence is that the First Respondent has been named on the tenancy agreements in error, and he asserts the Second Respondent is the sole landlord. Accordingly, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the rent payments would either be made to the Second Respondent’s managing agent and then paid on to it as the sole landlord, or the rent payments are made directly to the Second Respondent.[55]We acknowledge there is no direct evidence regarding exactly who the Applicant’s rent was paid to, so we accept there is a remote possibility that the Second Respondent does not receive the rent. However, we do not consider such a possibility is sufficient to amount to a reasonable doubt.[56]The Respondents do not dispute the other elements of the offence. In other words, it is admitted that the Property requires a licence, and in fact Waltham Forest issued a selective licence to the Second Respondent in respect of the Property. Mr Le Blanc’s witness statement also accepted there had been a delay in applying for a selective licence. We regard the extracts from Mr Le Blanc’s witness statement quoted at paragraph 27 above amounts to an admission of these elements of the offence, and Ms Baig maintained that position at the final hearing.[57]The Respondents did not put forward a defence of reasonable excuse: the arguments made on the Second Respondent’s behalf were relevant to the amount of a rent repayment order, not disputing whether the offence has been committed.[58]In any event, and for the avoidance of doubt, we do not consider the Second Respondent has proved on the balance of probabilities that it has a reasonable excuse. For instance we do not consider the fact that no notification was received about the introduction of a selective licensing scheme is a reasonable excuse. Landlords are expected to acquaint themselves with the relevant regulatory requirements, and the Respondents did not assert Waltham Forest had failed to comply with its section 83 obligations.[59]In the circumstances, having found that an offence has been committed under section 95(1), having found that there is no reasonable excuse, we also find it is appropriate to exercise our discretion by making a rent repayment order against the Second Respondent, there being no exceptional circumstances that would justify refusing to make the order. Amount of the Rent Repayment Order Relevant factors[60]In its decision in Acheampong v Roman and others [2022] UKUT 239 (LC), the Upper Tribunal recommended a four-stage approach to determine the amount of the rent repayment order, that approach is summarised as follows:60.1 Ascertain the whole of the rent for the relevant period;60.2 Subtract any element of that sum that represents payment by the landlord for utilities that only benefited the tenant;60.3 Consider how serious this offence was, both compared to other types of offence in respect of which a rent repayment order may be made and compared to other examples of the same type of offence; and60.4 Consider whether any deduction from, or addition to, that figure should be made pursuant to section 44(4) of the 2016 Act in the light of the parties’ conduct, the landlord’s financial circumstances and whether the landlord has previously been convicted of an offence to which Chapter 4 of the 2016 Act applies.[61]We have adopted the approach recommended in Acheampong v Roman and others The amount of the award[62]The Applicant is seeking repayment of the total amount of the rent paid by her (i.e. less the Universal Credit received) throughout the period of her claim being 17th August 2022 to 17th August 2023.[63]In challenging the amount claimed the Respondent relies on alleged discrepancies in the Applicant’s bank statements when compared to Universal Credit payments. It also relies on sums paid by Waltham Forest Council to the Applicant, and seems to suggest these payments are housing benefits.[64]Ms Baig also challenged the Applicant’s entitlement to a rent repayment order in respect of contributions received from her older daughters. Mr Zitron argued the authorities justify a deduction from the amount of a rent repayment order to reflect housing benefit or universal credit, but not family contributions to household expenses.[65]In our judgment, the whole of the rent paid during the relevant period was £16,196.15, being £16,800 of the total amount paid, less Universal Credit for July 2023 of £603.85. This is lower than Mr Zitron’s calculation of £16,791.78, but our calculation is supported by the information at paragraphs 15 to 21 above.[66]It is common ground that the Applicant was responsible for paying utilities, which is reflected in the express terms of the 2018 and 2019 written agreements, and the memorandum of extension was on the same terms as the preceding agreements. Therefore, there is no deduction from the rent repayment order for utilities.[67]We are satisfied that the Applicant received Universal Credit towards her housing costs in July 2023 amounting to £603.85. We accept the Applicant’s explanation regarding the difference between the amount credited by the DWP to her bank account and the amount she claims represents the housing costs element of her Universal Credit. Namely, that some of the Universal Credit is paid as an income benefit. That position is supported by the allocation provided by the DWP that is exhibited to the Applicant’s second witness statement.[68]However, the Applicant received the August 2023 Universal Credit on 21st August, which is after the period of the offence, and so she could not have used it to discharge her rent liability during the period of the offence.[69]We are also satisfied that she did not receive housing benefit, which where payable, would be received from the relevant local authority. In this case we accept the credits on the Applicant’s bank statement from Waltham Forest relate to her wages, which is supported by the payslips she exhibited to her second witness statement showing she is an employee of Waltham Forest.[70]We also do not consider any deductions are justified for the housekeeping paid by the Applicant’s daughters. It is a fairly typical arrangement for non-dependent adults to pay a contribution towards household expenses. We do not consider it is material that these payments were described on the bank transfers as rent, and we do not consider the use of that term was meant to be in the legal or formal sense that the term rent is used. These were payments by the Applicant’s daughters for what is commonly referred to as housekeeping, we do not consider a family arrangement of this type was intended to describe a formal payment towards the Applicant’s legal liability to pay the rent. The different amounts of these payments also supports this as a normal domestic and informal arrangement.[71]In fixing the appropriate sum the Tribunal had regard to Acheampong v Roman and others and the decision in Hallett v Parker [2022] UKUT 165 (LC). We have also taken into account that proper enforcement of licensing requirements against all landlords, good and bad, is necessary to ensure the general effectiveness of the licensing system and to deter evasion.[72]The Applicant has claimed for the period 17th August 2022 until 17th August 2023. By section 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 an application is limited to repayment of rent during a 12 month period (i.e. one year) in which the offence is committed. The claim period in this case is not 12 months or one year, it is one year plus one day. We consider the appropriate period is 18th August 2022 until 17th August 2023.[73]In assessing the seriousness of the offence, we have had regard to paragraphs 47 to 56 of the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Newell v Abbott [2024] UKUT 181 (LC). Paragraph 47 of that decision includes the following: It is an important part of this Tribunal’s function to promote consistent decision making. It is relevant therefore to consider those cases involving licensing offences in which the level of rent repayment has been determined by the Tribunal. Each case is different and in each case the decision maker must exercise their own discretion, but the pattern of decisions in other cases is a necessary point of reference and a relevant factor to which regard should be had.[74]From this, we considered the case summaries at paragraphs 48 to 56 of Newell v Abbott provide helpful guidance as to where in this case, the amount of the rent repayment order may lie, when compared to other cases. However, we are also mindful of the Deputy President’s guidance that “…each case is different and in each case the decision maker must exercise their own discretion…”. We also consider the award made by the Deputy President in Newell v Abbott is relevant, which was dealt with at paragraph 62 of the Upper Tribunal’s decision as follows: Nor has Mr Newell provided evidence of his financial circumstances. On that basis, bearing in mind that the offence was committed by the landlord of a single property and was the result of inadvertence, or lack of attention, rather than being deliberate, and that the accommodation provided was generally of a good standard which attracted long term residents and which the respondents were disappointed to leave, the appropriate order is for the repayment of 60% of the rent received. Had the offence been committed for a much shorter period the penalty I would have imposed would have been equal to 50% of the rent, but the effective operation of selective licensing schemes depends on landlords keeping themselves properly informed and a prolonged failure to obtain a licence therefore merits a higher penalty.[75]We consider there are some similarities between this case and Newell v Abbott. For instance, the offence was committed out of inadvertence and the accommodation provided was of a good standard. However, the Second Respondent is a professional landlord unlike Mr Newell.[76]Except for committing this offence, we consider the Second Respondent’s conduct as a landlord has been appropriate, and we are not aware of any relevant previous convictions. It appears to have complied with other regulatory requirements. In particular, we note it obtained an accelerated possession order without a hearing which is only granted where the court is satisfied that the regulatory requirements are met. We are prepared to accept that when it learnt about the selective licence scheme it applied for a licence promptly. We also consider the condition of the Property was adequate. While the Applicant complains about dampness and mould, that is the only complaints made during her six year occupancy, and the necessary works were carried out as discussed in the Applicant’s e-mail exchange with Ms Egbo (see paragraph 38 above). Mould and condensation are not infrequent occurrences, and in itself does not indicate a breach of the landlord’s obligation. In this case, the necessary works were carried out by the Second Respondent.[77]However, the Property was unlicenced for 15 months, and as stated, the Second Respondent is a professional landlord, which are relevant to the seriousness of the offence.[78]We do not consider there has been any misconduct on the Applicant’s part. Her bank statements show she paid the rent, and although evicted it was by a “no-fault” eviction. We do not accept the Respondents’ claim that she has sought to maximise the rent repayment order by claiming during the period of the rent increase is a justified criticism. It is for an Applicant to choose what period to claim for providing the relevant statutory criteria is met.[79]Having regard to the above factors, including the total rent paid by the Applicant during the relevant period, the severity of the offence and the deductions that we considers should be made in light of factors to which we must have regard under section 44(4) of the 2016 Act, we make a rent repayment order against the Second Respondent in the total sum of £8907.88, which represents 55% of the rent paid during the relevant period.[80]The Tribunal would remind the parties that it does not have the power to order the payment of the rent repayment order. It can only determine the amount of the rent repayment order. Name: Judge Tueje Date: 29th October 2025 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). Appendix of Relevant Legislation Housing Act 2004 95 Offences in relation to licensing of houses under this Part(1) A person commits an offence if he is a person having control of or managing a house which is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 85(1)) but is not so licensed.(2) A person commits an offence if— (a) he is a licence holder or a person on whom restrictions or obligations under a licence are imposed in accordance with section 90(6), and (b) he fails to comply with any condition of the licence.(3) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1) it is a defence that, at the material time— (a) a notification had been duly given in respect of the house under section 62(1) or 86(1), or (b) an application for a licence had been duly made in respect of the house under section 87, and that notification or application was still effective (see subsection (7)).(4) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) it is a defence that he had a reasonable excuse— (a) for having control of or managing the house in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1), or (b) for failing to comply with the condition, as the case may be. …[7]For the purposes of subsection (3) a notification or application is “effective” at a particular time if at that time it has not been withdrawn, and either—(a) the authority have not decided whether to serve a temporary exemption notice, or (as the case may be) grant a licence, in pursuance of the notification or application, or(b) if they have decided not to do so, one of the conditions set out in subsection (8) is met.[8]The conditions are—(a) that the period for appealing against the decision of the authority not to serve or grant such a notice or licence (or against any relevant decision of the appropriate tribunal) has not expired, or(b) that an appeal has been brought against the authority’s decision (or against any relevant decision of such a tribunal) and the appeal has not been determined or withdrawn.[9]In subsection (8) “relevant decision” means a decision which is given on an appeal to the tribunal and confirms the authority’s decision (with or without variation). Housing and Planning Act 2016 40 Introduction and key definitions(1) This Chapter confers power on the First-tier Tribunal to make a rent repayment order where a landlord and committed an offence to which this Chapter applies.(2) A rent repayment order is an order requiring the landlord under a tenancy of housing in England to – (a) repay an amount of rent paid by a tenant, or (b) pay a local housing authority an amount in respect of a relevant award of universal credit paid (to any person) in respect of rent under the tenancy.(3) A reference to “an offence to which this Chapter applies” is to an offence, of a description specified in the table, that is committed by a landlord in relation to housing in England let to that landlord. Act section general description of offence 1 Criminal Law Act 1977 section 6(1) violence for securing entry 2 Protection from Eviction Act 1977 section 1(2), (3) or (3A) eviction or harassment of occupiers 3 Housing Act 2004 section 30(1) failure to comply with improvement notice 4 section 32(1) failure to comply with prohibition order etc 5 section 72(1) control or management of unlicensed HMO 6 section 95(1) control or management of unlicensed house 7 This Act section 21 breach of banning order(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), an offence under section 30(1) or 32(1) of the Housing Act 2004 is committed in relation to housing in England let by a landlord only if the improvement notice or prohibition order mentioned in that section was given in respect of a hazard on the premises let by the landlord (as opposed, for example, to common parts). 41 Application for rent repayment order (1) A tenant or a local housing authority may apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a rent repayment order against a person who has committed an offence to which this Chapter applies. (2) A tenant may apply for a rent repayment order only if – (a) the offence relates to housing that, at the time of the offence, was let to the tenant, and (b) the offence was committed in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made. 43 Making of a rent repayment order (1) The First-tier Tribunal may make a rent repayment order if satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that a landlord has committed an offence to which this Chapter applies (whether or not the landlord had been convicted). (2) A rent repayment order under this section may be made only on an application under section 41. (3) The amount of a rent repayment order under this section is to be determined in accordance with – (a) section 44 (where the application is made by a tenant); 44 Amount of order: tenants (1) Where the First-tier Tribunal decides to make a rent repayment order under section 43 in favour of a tenant, the amount is to be determined in accordance with this section. (2) The amount must relate to rent paid during the period mentioned in the table. If the order is made on the ground that the landlord has committed the amount must relate to rent paid by the tenant in respect of an offence mentioned in row 1 or 2 of the table in section 40(3) the period of 12 months ending with the date of the offence an offence mentioned in row 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 of the table in section 40(3) a period, not exceeding 12 months, during which the landlord was committing the offence (3) The amount that the landlord may be required to repay in respect of a period must not exceed— (a) the rent paid in respect of that period, less (b) any relevant award of universal credit paid (to any person) in respect of rent under the tenancy during that period. (4) In determining the amount the tribunal must, in particular, take into account— (a) the conduct of the landlord and the tenant, (b) the financial circumstances of the landlord, and (c) whether the landlord has at any time been convicted of an offence to which this Chapter applies.