Glorell Marie Bannister v Joseph Akinremi [2025] UKUT 180 (LC)

[2025] UKUT 180 (LC)Case No LC-2025-104
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)
AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)
Ref: LON/OOAP/HMF/2024/0149
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand,
Between
GLORELL MARIE BANNISTERAppellantJOSEPH AKINREMIRespondent
12 June 2025
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
HOUSING – RENT REPAYMENT ORDER – order made by the First-tier Tribunal against a tenant of the property found to have been the landlord’s agent and to have been a person having control of the property – order made without jurisdiction
16 Dawlish Road,Tottenham,London, N17 9HPUpper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth CookeDetermination by written representations© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025Date 2025-06-12

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal from a rent repayment order made by the First-tier Tribunal. It has been decided under the Tribunal’s written representations procedure; neither party has been legally represented.

The law: rent repayment orders

[2]Section 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 gives the FTT jurisdiction to make rent repayment orders:
“(1) This Chapter confers power on the First-tier Tribunal to make a rent repayment order where a landlord has 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.” (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]As can be seen from that wording, a rent repayment order can only be made against a landlord.[4]The offences listed in section 40 include the offence created by section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004, of being person having control of or managing a house in multiple occupation (an “HMO”) which is required to be licensed but is not licensed. The expressions “person managing” and “person having control” are defined in section 263 of the 2004 Act. Essentially both involve the receipt of rent. A person who commits the section 72(1) offence may or may not be a landlord, but a rent repayment order can only be made against the person committing that offence if he or she is the landlord of the property. This is in contrast to a financial penalty order under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004, which may be made against a person who is managing or in control of a property whether or not they are also the landlord.

The factual background

[5]The respondent Mr Akinremi made an application to the FTT for a rent repayment order in respect of the time when he was a tenant of a room at 16 Dawlish Road, Tottenham, from April 2023 to April 2024. Ms Bannister, the appellant in this appeal and the respondent in the FTT, was a tenant of another room in the property. The FTT said this:
“2. The property is described as a 6 bedroom house with shared living room, kitchen and bathroom facilities. Each of the bedrooms was let separately to tenants as living accommodation. The Respondent occupied one of the bedrooms. 3. The freehold of the property is owned by a Mrs Ramdoo. However, on her own case, the Respondent would relet the rooms from time to time, collect the rent and deposit (if any) from the tenants and arrange for any repairs to be carried out. She said that she had done so since 2017 and asserted that she did so on behalf of Mrs Ramdoo and did not benefit financially from the arrangement. 4. At all material times, the Applicant only dealt with the Respondent. On or about 28 April 2023, she granted him a verbal monthly periodic tenancy of one of the bedrooms in the property at a monthly rent of £590 including the cost of utility bills. On 7 April 2023, the Applicant paid a deposit of £590 to the Respondent, which was not protected under a tenancy deposit scheme. Throughout his tenancy, the Applicant also paid his rent directly to the Respondent. 5. It was common ground that the property was an HMO and was not licensed as was required by the London Borough of Haringey under its mandatory licensing scheme. At no time during the Applicant’s occupation was the property licensed. 6. It seems that on 6 March 2024, a heated discussion took place between the Applicant and various other tenants. This resulted in the Respondent purporting to give a written notice dated the same day terminating his tenancy on 6 April 2024. 7. On 2 April 2024, the Applicant had a violent altercation with another resident at the property, which resulted in him being charged with ABH. As part of his bail conditions, the Applicant could not return to the property unless he was escorted by a police officer. As at the date of this hearing, the Applicant was waiting on the date for his Crown Court trial in relation to this charge. The Applicant’s tenancy ended on 30 April 20204 when he attended the property with a police officer to collect his belongings and, effectively, surrendered his tenancy on that date. 8. Subsequently, the Applicant made this application dated 2 April 2024 for rent repayment order limited to the 11 month period in respect of which he paid rent in the sum of £6,490 plus the deposit of £590.”
[6]I take it from that account that the FTT found that the freehold of the property was held by Mrs Ramdoo and that the appellant and respondent were fellow tenants, each occupying a room at the property. The FTT went through the relevant statutory provisions and then said this: “16. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal made the following findings of fact beyond reasonable doubt:(a) that the property was a house occupied by 5 or more unrelated persons who shared relevant amenities and was therefore, required to be licensed under a mandatory licensing scheme pursuant to sections 61(1) and 55 respectively in the Housing Act 2004.(b) that the property was not licensed during the Applicants’ occupation. Therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent had committed an offence under section 72(1) of the Act. 17. In addition, on balance, the Tribunal found that the Respondent was a person having control of the property within the meaning of sections 263(1) of the 6 Housing Act even if she was doing so on behalf of Mrs Ramdoo. This was based on the Respondent’s admission that she let the rooms in the property from time to time, collected the rents and deposits (if any), arranged for repairs to be carried out and, indeed, purported terminate the Applicant’s tenancy by serving a written notice in her own name. The Tribunal was satisfied that these were all the acts of someone who was clearly in control of the property, albeit on behalf of Mrs Ramdoo.” (a) that the property was a house occupied by 5 or more unrelated persons who shared relevant amenities and was therefore, required to be licensed under a mandatory licensing scheme pursuant to sections 61(1) and 55 respectively in the Housing Act 2004. (b) that the property was not licensed during the Applicants’ occupation. Therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent had committed an offence under section 72(1) of the Act.[7]The FTT found that the landlord was Mrs Ramdoo and that Ms Bannister acted as the landlord’s agent. The FTT appears to have accepted that Ms Bannister did not keep the rent but passed it on to Mrs Ramdoo. It proceeded to make a rent repayment order against her.

The appeal

[8]The appellant appeals, with permission from this Tribunal. She says that she is not the landlord; that she did not retain any rent, nor the deposit; that the HMO licence was Mrs Ramdoo’s responsibility, that Mrs Ramdoo knew this but said she could not afford a licence.[9]Mr Akinremi in response writes that Ms Bannister was indeed his immediate landlord, but has not elaborated on that. I can understand that he regarded her as his landlord because he paid his rent to her and dealt with her rather than with Mrs Ramdoo, but the FTT found that Mrs Ramdoo was the immediate landlord (and from the available information I take the view that it was right to do so), and that Ms Bannister was a person in control of the property on the landlord’s behalf.[10]Accordingly there was no jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order against Ms Bannister; the appeal succeeds and the FTT’s order is set aside.[11]Ms Bannister also sought permission to appeal the amount of the rent ordered to be repaid but in view of the fact that the order against her has been set aside I do not need to say anything more about that. Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke 12 June 2025 Right of appeal Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right of appeal may be exercised only with permission. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be sent or delivered to the Tribunal so that it is received within 1 month after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties (unless an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties, in which case an application for permission to appeal must be made within 1 month of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision on costs is sent to the parties). An application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal a further application may then be made to the Court of Appeal for permission.

Cited in 1 later judgment