Flat 11 Soane Court, St Pancras Way, London NW1 9EG ((Housing) Act 2004 and Housing and Planning Act 2016 - Rent repayment orders)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicants, tenants of Flat 11, Soane Court, London NW1 9EG, brought an application for a rent repayment order (RRO) under section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The application followed the conviction of the first and second Respondents for offences related to the control and management of an unlicensed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The Applicants occupied separate rooms in a five-bedroom flat, sharing common facilities. The Respondents were fined significant sums for these offences at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court on 4 May 2022. The Applicants sought repayment of rent paid during their respective occupation periods between September 2020 and March 2021, totaling £5,731.29. The third Respondent, a company that received rent payments, was initially named but later removed from the application as no conviction had been obtained against it. The tribunal considered whether the third Applicant’s claim was made within time and found it was not statute barred pursuant to section 73(8) Housing Act 2004. A hearing was held with documentary evidence and witness testimony from the Applicants, detailing serious safety issues with the premises, including fire safety deficiencies and electrical hazards.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicants were entitled to a rent repayment order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 following the Respondents' conviction for managing an unlicensed HMO.
2. Whether the third Applicant’s application was made within the statutory time limit.
3. What amount should be awarded by way of rent repayment order, taking into account the conduct of the parties and the seriousness of the offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The Applicants submitted that the Respondents had committed offences by managing an unlicensed HMO during their occupation periods.
• They sought rent repayment orders reflecting 95% of the rent paid, arguing no deductions should be made for the Applicants’ conduct as they had paid rent as required.
• They highlighted serious safety breaches at the premises, including lack of fire safety measures and dangerous electrical issues.
• The Applicants contended that the third Applicant’s claim was timely as the offence was ongoing and not tied to a particular tenant.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents did not participate in the application and did not provide any financial information or submissions.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The tribunal found beyond reasonable doubt that the first and second Respondents committed offences under section 72(1) Housing Act 2004 by managing an unlicensed HMO throughout the relevant periods. The tribunal accepted the Applicants’ uncontradicted evidence and the proof of conviction. Regarding the third Applicant’s application, the tribunal applied section 73(8) Housing Act 2004 to determine that the claim was made within the statutory 12-month period following conviction and was therefore not time-barred.

In determining the amount of the rent repayment order, the tribunal considered the severity of the breaches, particularly the fire safety and electrical hazards, and the professional status of the Respondents as landlords or managing agents. The tribunal noted the significant fines already imposed on the Respondents and the absence of any financial disclosure from them. The tribunal accepted the Applicants’ submissions that 95% of the rent paid was an appropriate starting point and found no basis to reduce the amount due to any alleged poor conduct by the Applicants, who had paid rent as required.

The tribunal therefore ordered the first and second Respondents to pay the Applicants the specified amounts within 14 days.

Holding and Implications

The tribunal GRANTED the rent repayment orders against the first and second Respondents as follows:

• Applicants One: £1,797.60
• Applicants Two: £2,412.05
• Applicant Three: £1,235

The Respondents were also ordered to reimburse the Applicants for the application and hearing fees totaling £300. All payments were to be made within 14 days of the decision date. The decision directly affects the parties by requiring repayment of rent due to the unlicensed status of the HMO and the offences committed. No broader legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory provisions to the facts of this case.