Tenant's Application for Rent Repayment Order Dismissed Due to Non-Compliance
📌 In brief
The claimant's request for a rent repayment order was denied because they did not follow the tribunal's instructions properly. The court highlighted the need for tenants to comply with procedural requirements.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must comply with the tribunal's directions to present their case effectively.
📖 What the law says
This section defines a rent repayment order as an order that requires a landlord or superior landlord who committed an offense covered by this chapter to either pay a tenant an amount related to rent paid or pay a local housing authority an amount related to universal credit paid for rent under the tenancy.
This section allows a tenant or a local housing authority to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a rent repayment order if the landlord has committed an offense covered by this chapter. The application can only be made if the offense relates to housing let to the tenant within two years of the application and if the offense is covered by the specified acts.
The First-tier Tribunal can make a rent repayment order if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a landlord has committed an offense covered by this chapter. The order can only be made based on an application under section 41.
If the First-tier Tribunal decides to make a rent repayment order in favor of a tenant, the amount of the order must relate to the rent paid by or on behalf of the tenant during the period of the offense. The amount cannot exceed the rent paid minus any universal credit awarded for rent during that period.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's application for a rent repayment order was dismissed due to non-compliance with the tribunal's directions.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant applied for a rent repayment order but failed to comply with the tribunal's directions, leading to the dismissal of the claim. The decision emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BE/HMF/2024/0113 Property : [ADDRESS], Southwark, London, [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : In person Respondent : [redacted] : In person Type of application : Application for a rent repayment order by tenant Sections 40, 41, 43, & 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 Tribunal : Judge Adrian Jack and Tribunal Louise Crane MCIEH Date of decision : 11th September 2024
DECISION
2
1. This is a claim for a rent repayment order in the sum of £3,171.78. The Tribunal gave directions in this matter on 28th May 2024. Of particular significance was the direction that the applicant serve a bundle by 25th June 2024. This the applicant failed to do.
2. The applicant asserts that she has been in poor health and in particular poor mental health. However, she has never presented any medical evidence to support this. When she appeared before us on 11th September 2024, she did not appear to be a hundred per cent as regards her health, but in our judgment, she was physically and mentally well enough to present her case.
3. In correspondence, the respondent complained of the applicant’s failure to serve a bundle. Further the Tribunal’s case officer chased the applicant for the bundle. The applicant repeated that she was in poor health, but, as we have noted, she never provided medical evidence to establish that she could not comply with the Tribunal’s directions.
4. As a result on Friday 6th September 2024, in order to save the hearing date 11th September 2024, Judge Jack made an order providing firstly that unless the applicant did by 4pm on Monday 9th September 2024 serve on the Tribunal and on the respondent, an application on a form Order1 supported by medical evidence for adjournment of the hearing on 11th September 2024, the hearing on 11th September 2024 would continue to be listed for a final hearing and secondly that unless the applicant did by 4pm on Monday 9th September 2024 serve on the Tribunal and on the respondent a bundle in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions of 28th May 2024, the applicant would be debarred from adducing evidence at the hearing on 11th September 2024.
5. At 3.33pm on 9th September 2024, the applicant sent an email which purported to attach a copy of the bundle to the Tribunal and to the respondent. In fact, however, only a copy of the Tribunal’s directions was attached. The Tribunal notified the applicant of the deficiency in an email of 3.54pm on 9th September 2024. The applicant in fact only sent her bundle as an attachment to an email of 10th September 2024 at 7.21am.
6. The consequence is that, pursuant to the “unless” order of 6th September 2024, the applicant was debarred from adducing evidence before us on 11th September 2024.
7. In order to adduce evidence before us, it was incumbent on the applicant to make an application to vary the order of 6th September 2024 or otherwise to seek relief from sanctions. Since any such application was likely to be contentious it was incumbent on her to make a formal application on Form Order1, which would normally be supported by evidence. She had not done so, when the matter was called on before us on 11th September 2024.
8. It follows that at the hearing before us, on the applicant having been debarred from adducing evidence, the case stood to be dismissed.
3 DECISION The applicant’s claim is dismissed.
Signed: Judge Adrian Jack
Date: 11th September 2024
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Challenge to Parking Penalty Charges Imposed on…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Tenant’s Service Charge Challenge
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Tenant’s Rent Repayment Claim
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Loses Appeal Against £15,000 Penalty for Unlicensed Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Validates Service Charges for Sinking Fund
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charges Unpayable Due to Legal Non-Compliance
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Reasonable and Payable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Ordered to Pay £4,054.20 in Costs for Aborted Lease Extension
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Harassment Claim Rejected by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects Claim to Enforce Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Variable and Reasonable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Loses Challenge to Service Charges in First-tier Tribunal
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
- The tenant failed to provide a bundle of documents by the deadline set by the tribunal.
- The tenant did not provide medical evidence to support her claim of poor health.
- The tenant was well enough to present her case despite her health concerns.
- The tenant was debarred from presenting evidence because she did not submit her bundle on time.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's assertion of poor health was not accepted as a reason for non-compliance.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant's application for a rent repayment order was dismissed.
Who was involved?
The claimant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the claimant's application because they failed to comply with the tribunal's directions.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 40, 41, 43, and 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the claimant's failure to comply with the tribunal's directions.
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 they comply with all procedural requirements set by the tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The compliance with the tribunal's directions was crucial, but the claimant failed to provide the necessary documentation.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can often be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to consult a solicitor for cases involving rent repayment orders.