First-tier Tribunal Denies Rent Repayment Order Due to Timing Issues
📌 In brief
A tenant tried to get a refund of rent paid to their landlord because the landlord operated an unlicensed HMO. The First-tier Tribunal denied the request because the application was made over 12 months after the last rent payment.
⚖️ Legal holding
An occupier cannot obtain a rent repayment order more than 12 months after the last payment of rent.
📖 What the law says
This section allows for rent repayment orders if an HMO is unlicensed and certain conditions are not met. It also specifies that rent payments and other periodic payments related to an unlicensed HMO remain valid and enforceable. However, amounts paid for rent can be recovered under specific conditions outlined in the section.
This section provides further details on rent repayment orders, including the conditions under which these orders can be made and the amounts that can be recovered. It specifies that the order must be made if the appropriate person has been convicted of an offense under section 72(1) and certain benefits have been paid during the period of the offense.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal denied a rent repayment order due to timing issues.
📜 Headnote Official document
An occupier applied for a rent repayment order against their landlord for payments made under an unlicensed HMO. The Tribunal denied the order due to the application being made more than 12 months after the last payment of rent, as per the Housing Act 2004.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2015
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/OOAY/HMA/2015/0006 Property : 15 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] :
Respondent : [redacted] : In person Type of Application : Application for a Rent repayment Order Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge [NAME] and venue of determination : 5th August 2015 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 5th August 2015
DECISION
2 DECISION
The Tribunal determines that the Respondent has no liability to the Applicant for the repayment of periodical payments (rent) in respect of the letting of 15 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (the Property) for the reasons set out below.
BACKGROUND 1. On 27th February 2015 the Respondent was convicted at the Camberwell Green Magistrates Court of an offence, amongst others, contrary to section 72(1) and (6) of the Housing Act 2004 (the Act) and was fined £5,500 plus costs of £800 and a victim surcharge of £120.
2. By an application dated 21st April 2015 the Applicant sought a Rent Repayment Order (RRP) against the Respondent, her landlord of the Property and in support lodged copies of her bank statements for the period February 2013 to 21st April 2014 3. In support of his position the Respondent filed a bundle under cover of a letter dated 20th July 2015, received at the Tribunal offices on 22nd July 2015.
4. The Applicant did not file any further papers in this matter.
THE LAW 5. The relevant law is set out below
FINDINGS 6. The Act provides that an occupier can seek to recover rent paid under s73(5) of the Act. S74(8) limits the period of recovery to not more than 12 month before the date of the application to the Tribunal. Further the provisions of s73(8) must be satisfied, which is the case here 7. The Respondent does not dispute that an offence has been committed but advances certain matters to explain the position which we have noted. One point made is that he says the Applicant did not vacate the Property until, at the earliest, September 2014 as evidenced by an email from the Applicant to the Respondent’s architect. However, it is said that the Applicant did not pay rent after 23rd April 2014, which is consistent with the bank account statements supplied.
8. The provisions of s74(5) mean that we can not go back beyond 22nd April 2014. There is no evidence before us of any rent being paid after that time, the last payment on the bank statements being shown as 10th April 2014, which means that we cannot award any repayment of rent (periodical payments) as the application was made more than 12 months after the last payment of rent.
Tribunal Judge 5th August 2015 Andrew Dutton
3
The Relevant Law s72 Offences in relation to licensing of HMOs (1)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. s73 Other consequences of operating unlicensed HMOs: rent repayment orders (5)If— (a)an application in respect of an HMO is made to a residential property tribunal by the local housing authority or an occupier of a part of the HMO, and (b)the tribunal is satisfied as to the matters mentioned in subsection (6) or (8), the tribunal may make an order (a “rent repayment order”) requiring the appropriate person to pay to the applicant such amount in respect of the housing benefit paid as mentioned in subsection (6)(b), or (as the case may be) the periodical payments paid as mentioned in subsection (8)(b), as is specified in the order (see section 74(2) to (8)). (8)If the application is made by an occupier of a part of the HMO, the tribunal must be satisfied as to the following matters— (a)that the appropriate person has been convicted of an offence under section 72(1) in relation to the HMO, or has been required by a rent repayment order to make a payment in respect of housing benefit paid in connection with occupation of a part or parts of the HMO, (b)that the occupier paid, to a person having control of or managing the HMO, periodical payments in respect of occupation of part of the HMO during any period during which it appears to the tribunal that such an offence was being committed in relation to the HMO, and (c)that the application is made within the period of 12 months beginning with— (i)the date of the conviction or order, or (ii)if such a conviction was followed by such an order (or vice versa), the date of the later of them. S74 (8)A rent repayment order may not require the payment of any amount which— (a)(where the application is made by a local housing authority) is in respect of any time falling outside the period of 12 months mentioned in section 73(6)(a); or (b)(where the application is made by an occupier) is in respect of any time falling outside the period of 12 months ending with the date of the occupier’s application under section 73(5); and the period to be taken into account under subsection (6)(a) above is restricted accordingly.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal dismisses rent repayment order claim in Southwark
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects £35,760 Rent Repayment Claim for Unlawful Eviction in Lond…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects Tenant's Request for Rent Repayment Order Due to Selective…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Late Application for Rent Increase Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects £6,960 Rent Repayment Claim for Unlicensed HMO in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Request for Rent Repayment Order Denied Due to Selective Licensing…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Cost Claims in Service Charge Dispute
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Tenant’s Service Charge Challenge
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Reasonable Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects Tenant's Claim for £7,800 Rent Repayment Order
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects £8,400 Rent Repayment Order Claim in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Upholds £X Service Charges for Assured Tenancy in London
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- None of the cases provided show a successful outcome for the claimants.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant did not obtain a rent repayment order within 12 months of the last rent payment.
- The tenant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord committed an offense.
- The tenant did not comply with the tribunal's directions to present their case effectively.
- Service charges were found to be reasonable and payable as they complied with the tenancy agreement and statutory requirements.
- The tenant could not avoid a rent repayment order by claiming to be the landlord's managing agent.
- The landlord's behavior was not deemed unreasonable, thus no costs or wasted costs were paid to the tenant.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the application for a Rent Repayment Order.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant could receive a refund for rent paid while the landlord was committing an offence under the Housing Act 2004.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the application because it was made more than 12 months after the last rent payment was made, which is beyond the allowable timeframe under the Housing Act 2004.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 72, 73, and 74 of the Housing Act 2004 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the application was made more than 12 months after the last rent payment was made.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure their application for a Rent Repayment Order is made within 12 months of the last rent payment.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included bank statements showing the last rent payment was made more than 12 months prior to the application.
