VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Wins Rent Repayment Order for Unlicensed Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled in favour of a tenant who requested a rent repayment order because the landlord did not have a required Selective Licence for the rented property. The order requires the landlord to repay £16,033 in rent.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent repayment order if the landlord operates without a required Selective Licence in a designated area.

📖 What the law says

Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.40

This section allows the First-tier Tribunal to make a rent repayment order when a landlord or a superior landlord commits an offense related to housing in England. The offenses include various violations like violence for securing entry, eviction or harassment of occupants, misuse of possession grounds, breaches of restrictions on letting or marketing, and failure to comply with improvement notices or prohibition orders.

Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.41

A tenant or a local housing authority can apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a rent repayment order if the landlord has committed an offense related to housing that was let to the tenant within two years of the application. There are exceptions for certain offenses under the Housing Act 1988.

Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.43

The First-tier Tribunal can make a rent repayment order if it is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that a landlord has committed an offense covered by the act. The order can only be made based on an application under section 41.

Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.44

When the First-tier Tribunal decides to make a rent repayment order in favor of a tenant, the amount of the order is determined based on the rent paid by or on behalf of the tenant during the period of the offense. The maximum amount cannot exceed the rent paid minus any universal credit awards for rent during that period.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal ordered a landlord to repay rent due to lack of a Selective Licence.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal granted a rent repayment order of £16,033 to the tenant after finding the landlord operated without a required Selective Licence in a designated area from September 2018 to June 2019. Judge Tagliavini presided over the case.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : LON/00BG/HMG/2019/0017 Property : Flat 2, 123-125 [NAME] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] :

Mr. [COUNSEL], [NAME] of Tower Hamlets Respondent: [redacted] : N/A Types of Application : Rent repayment order Tribunal Members : Judge Tagliavini Mr. M Taylor FRICS Date and venue of Hearing

: 29 November 2019 [ADDRESS], [NAME] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision

: 2 December 2019

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal

I The tribunal makes a rent repayment order in the sum of £16,033 to be paid by the Respondent to the Applicants.

The application

1. This is an application made under the provisions of sections 40, 41, 43 and 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 for a rent repayment order in respect of premises situate at 123-[ADDRESS], [NAME] [POSTCODE]. The applicants seek a rent repayment order in the sum of £16,033.55 for the period 01/09/2018 to 01/06/2019 representing a 10 months period of their assured shorthold tenancy which commenced on 1 September 2018 for a period of 12 months at rent of £1,603.33 per month, and during which period the respondent did not have a Selective Licence for the subject premises.

The premises

2. The premises subject premises comprises a flat situated in a three storey building which has been converted into 6 flats with commercial premises on the ground floor.

Background

3. The building in which the premises are situated is located in an area which has been designated by the [NAME] of Tower Hamlets as a selective licensing area. Consequently, as from 1 October 2016 the subject premises required a Selective Licence to operate as it falls under the [NAME] of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) Selective Licensing Scheme. However, no valid application for such a licence was received by LBTH from the respondent until about 8 July 2019.

The Applicant’s evidence

4. In support of the Applicants’ application the tribunal was provided with a small bundle of documents numbered pages 1 to 57. These included a statement from Mr. [NAME] a Housing Advisor with LBTH dated 08/06/2019 and an expanded (undated) statement from him. In these statements, Mr. [NAME] set out the attempts that had been made since June 2017 to contact Mr. [RESPONDENT] [NAME] as a partner in [RESPONDENT] and landlord notifying him of the need to obtain a Selective Licence as he was said to have control of and managed the unlicensed subject premises. However, it was not until July 2019 that a valid application for a Selective Licence was made for the premises by Mr. [RESPONDENT] requesting a licence in the name of A & [RESPONDENT].

5. The tribunal was also provided with a copy of the Applicants’ Assured Shorthold Tenancy made between them and A & [RESPONDENT] for a

3 term of 12 months commencing on 1 September 2018 at a rent of £1603.33 per month. An Official Copy of the Land Register showed that the registered proprietors of the subject building are [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] as from 03/08/2011. Copies of bank statements showed regular payments of rent of £1603.33 being made to A & [RESPONDENT] from 29/08/2018 to 1 May 2019 and a schedule of these payments for a 10 month period was provided which totalled £16,033.30.

6. The tribunal was also provided with a copy of the application for a Selective License made by the respondent in the name of Mr. [RESPONDENT] [NAME] who held himself out as a partner of A & [RESPONDENT].

7. At the hearing of the application the tribunal heard the oral evidence of Mr. [APPELLANT] and Mr. [APPELLANT] who told the tribunal that they had found the subject premises through an internet search and the advertisement of [NAME], letting agents. After arranging a viewing with the letting agents the applicants signed a tenancy agreement commencing on 1 September 2018 which gave the name and address of the landlord as A & [RESPONDENT], [NAME], Romford. The [NAME] gave an email address and telephone number for Mr. [RESPONDENT] [NAME] as the landlord.

8. Both applicants confirmed to the tribunal that they had not been in receipt of any housing benefit or Universal Credit housing costs element during the period of their tenancy. They also told the tribunal that they had suffered with minor items of disrepair and a cockroach infestation, which although treated by pest control was not eradicated.

The respondent’s evidence

9. The respondent was not represented at the hearing and failed to provide the tribunal with any statement opposing the application or any financial or other evidence to establish why a rent repayment order should not be made either at all or in a reduced sum.

The tribunal’s decisions and reasons

10. The tribunal finds from the documents provided and the statements of Mr. [NAME] that the subject premises fell into an area of selective licensing with effect from 1 October 2016. The tribunal is also satisfied that the respondent had control or management of the said premises and did not apply for a selective licence until 8 July 2019. Therefore, the tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and is sure that the respondent was committing an offence pursuant to section 95(1) of the Housing Act 2004 during the period 1 September 2018 to at least the end of June 2019 for which period the rent repayment order is made.

11. In the absence of any statement, objection or evidence from the respondent, the tribunal is unable to take into account the respondent’s financial circumstances. The tribunal finds however, that the

4 respondent has not been convicted of any offence in respect of the subject property or been made the subject of any financial penalty. The tribunal finds that there is no evidence of any reported concerns about the conduct of the applicant tenants and notes that their deposit was returned with only a modest deduction of £200 being made.

12. Therefore, in the absence of any reasons as to why the amount sought should be reduced, the tribunal determines that it is appropriate to make a rent repayment order in the sum of £16,033.30 to be paid by the respondent to the applicants.

Signed: Judge Tagliavini

Dated: 2 December 2019

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

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 is entitled to a rent repayment order if the landlord fails to operate with a required Selective Licence.
  • Tenants can challenge the reasonableness and cost of fire safety works under their lease terms.
  • Tenants have the right to receive a valid notice of proposed rent increases under the Housing Act 1988.
  • Tenants can contest the reasonableness and payability of administration charges imposed by the landlord.
  • Landlords can obtain dispensation from consultation requirements for urgent repairs under certain conditions.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors listed against the claimant based on the provided similar cases.)

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal decided to grant a rent repayment order of £16,033 to the tenant.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the landlord should repay the rent because the property was operated without a required Selective Licence.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 2004, and 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 that the landlord operated the property without a required Selective Licence.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be able to request a rent repayment order if their landlord operates without a required Selective Licence.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence included the tenancy agreement, bank statements showing rent payments, and a statement from the local authority regarding the Selective Licence requirement.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.