Tenant Wins Partial Rent Repayment Order Against Landlord

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

1

FIRST – TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : CAM/26UH/HMH/2023/0002

Property : [ADDRESS], Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 4L$

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] 40-44 of the Housing & Planning Act 2016

Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME] of Hearing : 9 August 2024 Date of Decision : 9 August 2024

__________________________________________________________________________________

DECISION __________________________________________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

DECISION

1. The tribunal makes a rent repayment order pursuant to Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The respondent shall repay to the applicant the sum of £1,079.

2. No order is made for the reimbursement of fees pursuant to Rule 13(2) of Tribunal Procedure (First- tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013.

3. No order for costs is made pursuant to section 29(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcment Act 2007 and Rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013.

2

REASONS

The application, parties and issues for determination

4. This is an application for a rent repayment order in respect of an assured shorthold tenancy of the second (top) floor room at [ADDRESS], Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1. The application was lodged by form RRO1 dated 9 December 2023. The applicant ex-tenant is [APPELLANT] (‘the applicant’). [NAME] ([NAME]) [RESPONDENT] (‘the respondent’) is the immediate landlord of [ADDRESS]. The application seeks repayment from the respondent to the applicant of the sum of £3,310 for rent said to be paid between August 2022 and July 2023.

5. Section 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (‘the 2016 Act’) provides that Chapter 4 of that Act confers power on the First-tier tribunal to make a rent repayment where a landlord has committed an offence of a description specified in a table set out with that section of that Act.

6. That table includes –

a. Control or management of an unlicensed HMO (house in multiple occupation) pursuant to section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004

b. Eviction or harassment pursuant to sections 1(2), (3) or (3A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977

c. Using or threatening violence for securing entry into the premises pursuant to section 6(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977

7. Section 41(1) of the 2016 Act provides that a tenant may apply to the First-tier tribunal for a rent repayment order against a person who has committed an offence to which Chapter 4 of the 2016 Act applies.

8. Section 41(2) of the 2016 Act provides that a tenant may only apply for a rent repayment order if the offence relates to housing that at the time of the offence was let to the tenant, and the offence was committed in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application was made.

9. Section 40(2) of the 2016 Act provides that a rent repayment order is an order requiring a landlord under a tenancy of housing in England to repay an amount of rent paid by a tenant.

10. Section 43 of the 2016 Act provides that the First-tier tribunal may make a rent repayment order if it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt (‘the criminal standard of proof’), that a landlord has committed an offence to which [Chapter 4] applies (whether or not the landlord has been convicted).

11. Section 44 of the 2016 Act provides that the amount of a rent repayment order is to be determined in accordance with this section and sets out how that amount is to be determined.

12. The offences alleged in the application are those offences identified in paragraph 6 of this Decision.

13. Each of the offences alleged relates to events which occurred in the period of 12 months ending with the date of the application to the tribunal on 9 December 2023.

3

The procedural history

14. On 26 April 2024 Judge Mary Hardman made a directions order in response to the application. That order clearly identified that the alleged offences must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that the bank statements filed with the application did not show rent payments for all of the amount claimed.

15. That order directed both parties to, by 24 May 2024, file and serve the names any witness they intend to call to give evidence at the hearing. Neither party complied with that direction.

16. That order directed the applicant to file, by 27 May 2024, a documents bundle including –

a. Any expanded statement of the reasons for the application. b. Full details of the alleged offences with supporting evidence. c. The tenancy agreement (or a summary of the terms). d. Evidence of the rent payments in the applicable period. e. A calculation of the amount of rent paid (weekly or monthly) in the applicable period excluding any amount received as housing benefit/universal credit.

17. No such bundle was received by the tribunal or by the respondent. The applicant stated that she had filed and served a bundle but could not confirm when. At the outset of the hearing the tribunal contacted its office who checked and confirmed that bundle had not been received. The applicant clearly had prepared such a bundle as she refers to it (citing page numbers) in her ‘claimant statement’. That statement comprises 42 pages. It is dated 2 August 2024. The applicant filed her “final – corrected – 2-8-2024” version with the tribunal office and served it on the respondent under cover of an email sent at 16.28 hours on 5 August 2024. The tribunal determination, dealt with as a preliminary issue at the hearing, is to admit this ‘claimant statement’ as the expanded statement of reasons directed, despite it being filed late. The applicant was able to access an electronic copy of the related documents bundle she had prepared on her laptop. She was unable to copy it to the tribunal for some reason which remains unclear. She was invited by the tribunal to read the relevant narrative from any document she wished to refer to and was able to do so. The applicant had earlier emailed to the tribunal office some 500 pages of mobile phone screenshots which the tribunal has received and read prior to the hearing, despite not being in the format required by the directions order made on 24 May 2024.

18. That same order made on 24 May 2024 directed the respondent to file with the tribunal office and serve on applicant, by 14 June 2024, a documents bundle including–

a. A full statement of reasons for opposing the application including any defence to the alleged offences and any response to the grounds. b. The names of any witnesses who will be called to give evidence and signed and dates summary of their evidence with a statement of truth. c. Evidence of the rent received in the applicable period less any housing benefit/ universal credit. d. A statement as to any circumstances that could justify a reduction in the maximum amount of any rent repayment order.

19. The respondent did not comply with the deadline set by that direction. She filed with the tribunal and served on the applicant a documents bundle including a ‘skeleton argument/defence’ document including a statement of truth and a number of witness statements, but did not do so until 15 July 2024. The tribunal determination, dealt with as a preliminary issue at the hearing, is to admit the majority of the documents in this bundle, despite it being filed late. The respondent received it some 3 weeks in advance of the hearing. The tribunal’s further determination, dealt with as a preliminary

4

issue at the hearing, is that the email format statements of [NAME[NAME] dated 10 July 2024, [NAME] K [NAME] dated 9 July 2024, [NAME[NAME] dated 6 July 2024, [NAME] dated 10 July 2024, and [NAME[NAME] dated 10 July 2024 are not admitted as evidence. None include a statement of truth. None of the makers of the statements have attended the hearing. The email format statement from [NAME[NAME] which includes a statement of truth and is dated 9 July 2024 is admitted as evidence but, given that she has not attended the hearing to answer any questions the applicant or the tribunal would ask about the content of her statement, the tribunal has been cautious about giving undue weight to untested evidence.

20. That order directed the applicant to file and serve a brief reply to respondent’s evidence, if she wished to do so by 21 June 2024. She has not filed a reply. She has instead responded to the applicant’s evidence in the last section of her ‘claimant statement’ which the tribunal has admitted in evidence. The hearing

21. The hearing has been convened as an in-person attended hearing at a local venue, being Stevenage Magistrates Court.

22. The applicant [APPELLANT] has attended as a litigant in person and represented herself.

23. The respondent [NAME] [RESPONDENT] has attended as litigant in person and represented herself. Part-way through the morning she has been joined and supported by her sister-in-law [APPELLANT] [NAME].

24. In advance of the hearing the applicant requested an English/Italian language interpreter. The tribunal service has engaged the services of [NAME]. He has very ably assisted throughout the hearing and the tribunal extends its thanks to him.

25. In advance of the hearing the applicant requested reasonable adjustments. The application identified the nature and scope of her disability and provided medical evidence of the same from her GP practice. To respect her privacy the tribunal does not provide details of the same in this Decision. The tribunal was satisfied that it is appropriate provide reasonable adjustments to the procedure used for the proceedings pursuant to section 20 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Equality Act 2010.

26. The tribunal has had regard to the guidance provided in the Judicial College Equal Treatment Bench Book (July 2024) (including chapters 1 (litigants in person), 2 (vulnerable adults) and 4 (mental disability) to ensure a fair procedure to enable [APPELLANT] to participate fully in the proceedings including the hearing, and in relation to her appeal rights as applicant. The guidance in chapter 1 of the Bench Book has similarly assisted the tribunal to ensure a fair procedure to enable [NAME] [RESPONDENT], as a litigant in person, to participate fully in the proceedings including the hearing, and in relation to her appeal rights as respondent.

27. To this end the tribunal endeavoured to make reasonable adjustments to the procedure including-

a. Convening the hearing at a local venue. b. Notifying both [APPELLANT] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] prior to the hearing that they were welcome to be accompanied and supported by people of their choosing at the hearing. c. Using plain language during the hearing. d. Providing the English/Italian language interpretation. e. Initially asking for word for word translation for [APPELLANT]’s benefit and requiring all those speaking at the hearing to do so in short ‘portions’ to allow that interpretation.

5

f. Subsequently asking that [APPELLANT] and the interpreter lead the procedure including by asking for a pause to catch up, and/or a repetition to ensure understanding, and/or a proactive lead from [APPELLANT] as to when and what interpretation she wants. g. Taking regular periodic breaks of a reasonable period (led by Ms [APPELLANT]) during the hearing. h. Identifying the documents being considered by the tribunal and reading what appear to be the relevant parts of them during the hearing. i. Assisting the parties to ask any questions of the other, guiding them to ensure relevance, and pro-active management of the process to ensure an inclusive and non-threatening experience. j. Using plain language in the Decision in so far as the precision required by legal determinations allows.

28. Prior to the hearing day the applicant, [APPELLANT], requested that the tribunal record the hearing and provide her with a copy of that recording. This has been dealt with as a preliminary issue at the outset of the hearing. The tribunal has asked her how such a recording will assist her. She states that she would use the recording as a memory aid when considering any appeal or complaint about the tribunal process and the hearing.

29. The tribunal is not a court of record and so hearings are not recorded as a matter of course. In order to facilitate this request, the tribunal sat in the local magistrates court in a courtroom with the ‘CVP’ system providing camera, microphone and recording equipment which allows the visual and audio recording of hearings, and can be transcribed subject to request and payment.

30. Both members of the tribunal have each individually tried to make clear to the applicant that the CVP recording would be made so long as she confirmed her understating of, and agreement to, two safeguards –

a. that the transcript will be read by her only and that she will not permit any other person to read it other than an advisor for the purposes of an appeal (including to the conclusion of any appeal to the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber) or a complaint, and

b. that she will not distribute the transcript or make it available on-line or in any other way to any other person.

31. This early part of the hearing was, at the tribunal’s request, interpreted precisely and slowly in narrative parts by [APPELLANT] to ensure that the applicant fully understood and was able to fully take part in the discussions.

32. Despite the several attempts of the tribunal members to use clear language to explain the necessary safeguards to the applicant she has repeatedly and consistently refused to agree to those safeguards. She has asked for the written ‘terms and conditions’ from the transcribing company, which the tribunal does not consider are needed for the purposes of agreeing to the stated safeguards or not.

33. During this preliminary part of the hearing focusing on this issue it has become apparent that the applicant understands what is being said in English and can adequately and indeed precisely and eloquently respond in English and does not need or want [NAME] translation expertise as she clearly and repeatedly said herself.

34. During this preliminary part of the hearing focusing on this issue it has become apparent that the applicant is able to and has chosen to type into her laptop a record of what is being said by all as it has been said, read this as a memory aid, and then quote it accurately when making her response. The pace of the hearing has been adjusted to allow for her to do this.

6

35. Having careful regard to all of these circumstances, and guided by the importance of the applicant being able to take an effective part in the hearing, the tribunal determined that recording the hearing was not necessary to deal with the case fairly and justly and for the applicant to fully participate in the proceedings for the purposes of the overriding objective in Rule 3 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)([NAME]) Rules 2013.

36. The tribunal acknowledges that the respondent objected to the recording of the hearing. She stated her belief that the applicant was manipulating the tribunal procedure in order to appeal and complain whatever the outcome. The tribunal reached its determination without having regard to that objection. The objective was to ensure reasonable adjustments to the procedure for the hearing to ensure that the applicant could take an effective part in the hearing, and to support her to do so. Any other reason or motive for seeking adjustments was not considered to merit any determinative weight.

Evidence, discussion and determinations

37. The tribunal has considered the application in four stages, being –

(i) Whether the tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] has committed the alleged offences. (ii) [APPELLANT] is entitled to apply to the tribunal for a rent repayment order. (iii) Whether the tribunal should exercise its discretion to make a rent repayment order. (iv) How much should any rent repayment order be.

The relevant offences – controlling or managing an unlicenced HMO

38. The applicant alleges that the respondent committed an offence, pursuant to section 72 of the Housing Act 2004, as she was the person controlling or managing a house in multiple occupation at [ADDRESS] that is required to be licensed under Part 2 of that Act but is not licenced.

39. Section 72(7B) of the Housing Act 2004 provides that if a local housing authority has imposed a financial penalty on a person under section 294A in respect of conduct amounting to an offence under this section, the person may not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of their conduct.

40. In her ‘defence/skeleton argument’ document the respondent states that Stevenage Borough Council imposed a civil financial penalty of £5,000 on her on 29 November 2023 for letting [ADDRESS] as a house in multiple occupation without the necessary licence to do so.

The relevant offences – unlawful eviction

41. The applicant alleges that the respondent illegally evicted her from her room at [ADDRESS].

42. Section 1(2) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 provides that –

“If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or attempts to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises”.

7

43. The applicant occupied her room at [ADDRESS] in August 2022. The room entrance door had a lock. The house entrance door had a lock. She was provided with keys to both. She alleges that she was evicted in her absence from the property on or about 22 January 2024. Her evidence in support can be summarised succinctly. She was working away in Newmarket. Before leaving she had removed all of her belongings from her room on first (top) floor of the house. Her room was left completely empty She had placed all of her belongings in a space under the staircase on the ground floor which was part of the communal hallway. She did not inform the respondent that she would be absent for a period and/or would be returning and would reinstate her belongings to the room on her return. She did not inform any of her co-residents that she would be absent for a period and/or would be returning and would reinstate her belongings to the room on her return. She stated that this process was a re-birth and cleansing ritual to celebrate her 25th birthday. When she returned to [ADDRESS] the lock to the communal front entrance door had been changed and she could not gain entry. She contacted [NAME] [RESPONDENT], but it took one week to provide her with the new key. It was left at the house for her. She could not find it when she went to collect it. She has never re-gained entry. This account was also summarised in her ‘claimant statement’ document which the tribunal admitted in evidence.

44. The respondent accepts that she changed the lock on the front entrance door to the house on 27 January 2024. She states that she did not change the lock on the applicant’s room at any time. She states that on 22 January 2024 she was informed by the other occupiers in their [COMPANY] that the applicant had been observed vacating the property. She visited the property later that day and found the applicant’s room door unlocked and open. She found the room to be entirely empty. She checked again after 5 days on 27 January 2024 and found the room was still empty and there was no sign of the applicant having returned and no sign that she continued to occupy the room. On 27 January she therefore changed the lock to the house front entrance door to ensure the security of the remaining occupiers. At around 7pm that day the applicant arrived at the house seeking entry. The respondent contacted and “after some dispute” offered to let her in to the house and provide her with a key to the front entrance door. The applicant asked the respondent to leave the key in a safe place for her to collect. She did so and sent a video of showing where it was (which video was produced). On 15 February 2024 the respondent found that the key remained where it had been left, the room remained empty, and there were no signs of occupation by the applicant. She retained the key to ensure the security of the remaining occupiers. The applicant contacted her on 17 February 2024 asking whether the key was still at the house for her, and the respondent refused to offer her a key again as she believed that the applicant “was playing mind games with her”.

45. The tribunal considers that the clear and uncontradicted, and indeed accepted, evidence is that the applicant cleared her room entirely and left it empty with the room door unlocked and open. It is accepted that she did not inform the respondent or any of her co-residents that she would be absent for a period but remained in occupation. The respondent claimed, and it is not disputed, that she waited for 5 days before changing the lock to the house entrance door. The tribunal considers that it was appropriate to do so as that door gave access to the whole house which had 4 other occupiers. When the applicant later came to the house seeking entry the respondent left a key in a safe place for her to collect as she had asked. It is accepted that the applicant did not explain to the respondent that she would continue to be absent from the property for a period. When the respondent learned that the applicant had not been seen at the property and found that the key remained where it had been left, the room remained empty, and there were no signs of occupation by the applicant over 2 weeks later she concluded that the applicant had quit the premises. The tribunal considers that this was a reasonable conclusion. In those circumstances the tribunal does not find on the evidence, to the criminal standard of proof, that the respondent unlawfully deprived the applicant of her occupation. Further, the tribunal determines that if the respondent did unlawfully deprive the applicant of her occupation that there is compelling evidence that she believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that applicant had ceased to reside in the premises.

8

The relevant offences - harassment with the intention of making the tenant quit occupation

46. [APPELLANT] alleges that the respondent harassed her with the intention of making her quit occupation of her room at [ADDRESS]. Section 1(3) of the Eviction from Protection Act provides that –

“If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier of any premises

(a) to give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof ; or (b) to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof ;

does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household……[she] shall be guilty of an offence”.

47. The applicant relies on a number of events and on a course of conduct which she says establishes harassment with the intention of making her quit occupation.

48. She states that on 21 November 2023 the respondent came to [ADDRESS] and attempted to enter her room there, that 22 November 2023 the respondent and others entered [ADDRESS] “unannounced” and banged on her room door and tried to open it with a key. The context for these visits is evidenced by the WhatsApp records in the respondent’s bundle. On 9 November 2024 the respondent contacted all of the occupiers stating that she had decided to sell [ADDRESS] and requested that they all “please start looking for alternative living accommodation” and was arranging for an estate agent to visit, inspect and value the property for the market. At 08.58 hours on 22 November 2004 the respondent notified the occupiers that the estate agent wished to view the property and their rooms at 1.30pm on 23 November 2024 and requested that the property was left “clean and tidy”. The applicant responded by a message refusing access until she had received a section 21 or section 8 notice. By a subsequent email to the respondent [NAME] stated that the property valuation on 23 November 2024 did not gain access to the applicant’s room.

49. She states that on in early November 2024 the respondent caused intentional damage to her car parked outside [ADDRESS]. This is described as paint splash and sparkles. Photographic evidence shows it to be minor. In a message on 15 November 2023 the respondent accepted that it was caused when she and her daughter were painting a fence adjacent to the applicant’s car which she has been asked to move but not had done so. The respondent asserted that the paint splashes were an accident. The respondent stated, and the applicant accepted at the hearing, that the respondent ensured the car was cleaned. There was no lasting damage of any type. The tribunal does not find on the evidence, to the criminal standard of proof, that this event constitutes harassment intended to make the applicant quit occupation.

50. The applicant further relies upon the service of the s8 notice of proceedings for possession and the s21 notice of intention to recover possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy. The respondent accepts that both were served on advice to secure vacant possession to sell [ADDRESS]. Whilst both were invalid, as [ADDRESS] was an unlicensed HMO, they were served with, albeit poor, legal advice within the context of the applicant being in rent arrears (which is confirmed by the rent account), and the respondent having decided to sell the property (which is confirmed by text messages exchanged with the occupiers and the engagement of an estate agent to inspect to value the property). The tribunal does not find on the evidence, to the criminal standard of proof, that service of the notices was harassment intended to make the applicant to quit occupation.

51. The applicant relies upon what was clearly on the evidence a poor and rather acrimonious relationship with the other 4 occupiers of [ADDRESS]. There is no evidence that they were

9

acting at the direction or with the encouragement of the respondent, nor that their behaviour was intended to make the applicant quit occupation. The tribunal accepts her evidence that she felt “demoralized, intimidated and demotivated” by the poor relationship with the other occupiers which appears to relate to the cleaning of communal areas, bin use and collection, and her request for CCTV to the outside of the house and in the communal areas.

52. The tribunal does not find on the evidence, to the criminal standard of proof, that this event constitutes harassment intended to make the applicant quit occupation.

The relevant offences – using or threatening violence to secure entry into the premises

53. [APPELLANT] alleges that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] used or threatened violence to secure entry into the premises. Section 6(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 provides that –

“any person who, without lawful authority, uses or threatens violence for the purpose of securing entry into any premises for himself or for any other person is guilty of an offence, provided that—

(a) there is someone present on those premises at the time who is opposed to the entry which the violence is intended to secure; and (b) the person using or threatening the violence knows that that is the case.”

54. The applicant relies upon the same evidence that she cites for the earlier alleged offences. There is no compelling evidence of violence, or any threat of violence, directed to securing entry to her room which discharges the criminal standard of proof.

Entitlement to claim a rent repayment order

55. The tribunal determines that the applicant is entitled to apply to the tribunal for a rent repayment order due to the respondent’s express admission in her own evidence that that Stevenage Borough Council imposed a civil financial penalty of £5,000 on her on 29 November 2023 as she was the person controlling or managing a house in multiple occupation at [ADDRESS] that was required to be licensed under Part 2 of that Act but was not licenced. In doing so, the tribunal applies section 43 of the 2016 Act which provides that the First-tier tribunal may make a rent repayment order if it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt that a landlord has committed an offence to which [Chapter 4] applies whether or not the landlord has been convicted. The respondent accepts that [ADDRESS] was an unlicenced HMO during the relevant period.

56. The additional alleged offences have not been established to the necessary criminal standard of proof on the evidence before the tribunal.

57. On the evidence before it the tribunal determines that it is appropriate to exercise its power to make a rent repayment order based on the HMO licensing failure by the respondent. The tribunal has reminded itself of the provisions of section 72(7B) of the Housing Act 2004 which provides that if a local housing authority has imposed a financial penalty on a person under section 294A in respect of conduct amounting to an offence under this section, the person may not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of their conduct. However, the respondent has expressly accepted that Stevenage Borough Council imposed a civil financial penalty of £5,000 on her on 29 November 2023, and that she was the person controlling or managing a house in multiple occupation at [ADDRESS] that was required to be licensed under Part 2 of the 2004 Act but was not licenced.

10

How much should any rent repayment order be ?

58. The application was issued on 9 December 2023. Surprisingly, neither party produced an accurate figure for the rent payable during the relevant period and the tribunal has had to explore this with them using the summary rent account filed by the respondent and the bank statements filed by the applicant. The rent payable between November 2022 for the 12 months to November 2023 was £3,105 (comprising £250 per month for the first 5 months and £265 for the following 7 months). This is the sum agreed by the parties during the hearing. The tribunal considers this to be the maximum rent repayment sum.

59. The tribunal has considered carefully whether to reduce this maximum rent repayment having regard to section 4 of the 2016 Act and to the decisions in Vadalamalyan v Stewart [2020] UKUT 183 (LC), and Ficcara v James [2021] UKUT 38 (LC) and Awad v Hooley [2021] UKUT 005 (LC), and Williams v Parmer [2021] UKUT 244(LC) and Aytan v Moore [2022] UKUT 27 (LC).

60. There are accepted rent arrears. Surprisingly, neither party produced an accurate figure for the rent arrears. Again, the tribunal has had to explore this with them using the summary rent account filed by the respondent and the bank statements filed by the applicant. The resulting sum, agreed by the parties during the hearing, is £1,095. The tribunal has reduced the rent repayment in the sum of the rent arrears

61. The rent payable was inclusive of utilities and outgoings. Those were interrogated in detail during the hearing with the benefit of the valuer member, [NAME]. There was no challenge from the applicant to the amounts put forward by the respondent, the applicant confirming there was gas central heating, and she had a radiator; cooking was via electric oven and broadband was provided.

62. The utilities and outgoings for the relevant period comprise electric at £2,8440 per year (£237 per calendar month), gas at £3,080.40 per year (£256.70 per calendar month), water at £912.00 per year (£76.00 per calendar month), internet at £624.00 per year (£52.00 per calendar month), and council tax at £1,845.26 per year. The applicant accepted that these utilities were provided as part of her tenancy and part of her rent. The council tax was the only actual cost that the respondent did not provided evidence of, and the valuer member has confirmed the same for a [ADDRESS] as a ‘band C’ of property by reference to the local authority website. The total cost of utilities and outgoings is £775.47 per month.

63. The applicant’s proportion has been conservatively calculated at 10% of the property outgoings as [ADDRESS] provides 4 occupied rooms with 5 occupiers in total. The tribunal makes a reduction of £77.55 in respect of utilities and outgoings.

64. In determining the amount of the rent repayment order the tribunal has considered the conduct of the respondent landlord. She was clearly an inept landlord during the relevant period and in relation to the tenancy. No written tenancy agreement was provided. No information was provided in relation to deposit protection. Stevenage Borough Council imposed a civil financial penalty of £5,000 on her on 29 November 2203 as she was the person controlling or managing a house in multiple occupation at [ADDRESS] that was required to be licensed under Part 2 of that Act but was not licenced. The applicant served, on poor advice, section 8 and section 21 notices which were invalid in respect of an unlicenced HMO at [ADDRESS]. The WhatsApp evidence filed by the respondent in the many pages of the screenshots submitted and quoted by the applicant from her missing documents bundle, records that the respondent offered a rent repayment of £3,100 (against the £3,300 claimed), and the applicant’s reply was that she would accept £25,000 including the rent repayment amount.

65. In determining the amount of the rent repayment order the tribunal has considered the conduct of the applicant tenant. She was in rent arrears. She had a poor relationship with the other occupiers

11

which appears to relate to the cleaning of communal areas, bin use and collection, and her request for CCTV to the outside of the house and in the communal areas. She accepts that the respondent offered to settle her claim for a rent repayment order but describes this approach as “rather unstable and inconsistent”. The tribunal does not consider it to be so. The WhatsApp evidence filed by the respondent and quoted by the applicant from her missing documents bundle confirm that the applicant’s approach was that she would accept £25,000 including the rent repayment amount. The tribunal considers that to be misguided conduct.

66. The tribunal has determined that the conduct of both applicant and respondent is open to equal criticism. Neither can be described as a good landlord or tenant respectively. The tribunal determines that no reduction is merited in respect of conduct.

67. The tribunal therefore determines that the repayment due is £1,079.

Tribunal fees

68. The applicant has not sought an order pursuant to Rule 13(2) of Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 requiring the respondent to reimburse to the applicant her application fee (£100) and hearing fee (£200). The tribunal does not make an order of its motion as it mindful that the respondent offered a payment of £3,100 to the applicant in March 2024, which offer the applicant refused.

Costs

69. The applicant has not sought any costs in relation to the tribunal.

70. The respondent has made an oral application for the applicant to pay the costs she has incurred in relation to the proceedings. She describes this as the cost of engaging solicitors who compiled her documents bundle and draft the defence/skeleton argument document at the front of that bundle.

71. In considering whether to exercise its power to award costs the tribunal has careful regard to section 29(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcment Act 2007 and Rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)([NAME]) Rules 2013 read against the overriding objective in Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules. The tribunal is also mindful of the guidance given by the Chamber President and Deputy President in [ADDRESS] [COMPANY] v [NAME], [NAME] v [NAME], [NAME] v [NAME] Rd Management [COMPANY] [2016] UKUT 0290 (LC). The tribunal has considered whether any party has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings and concluded not. No party costs order is made.

Stephen Reeder Judge of the First Tier Tribunal, [NAME]

31 August 2024

12

YOUR RIGHT OF APPEAL

A. Rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 requires the tribunal to notify parties about any right of appeal they may have from its decision.

B. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to this First-tier tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

C. The application for permission to appeal must be received at the regional office within 28 days after the date on which the tribunal sends the written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

D. 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.

E. 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), must state the grounds of appeal, and must state the result the party making the application is seeking.

F. If the First-tier tribunal refuses permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made directly to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).