Rakusen v Jepsen [2021] EWCA Civ 1150

This case relates to a leasehold flat and a claim by the tenant that the owner and his partner were in control of an unlicensed HMO. The lessee owners vacated the flat and let it to an investment company.  The  company entered into licence agreements with Mr Jepsen and two others for occupation of individual rooms in the flat.  Subsequently four people moved in which meant it was a house in multiple occupation (HMO) requiring a licence.

In 2019 the investment company's tenancy ended and the residents applied to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) for a Rent Repayment Order against the owner (Rakusen) and his partner.  It was argued by Rakusen that the order could only be made against the immediate landlord, namely, the investment company. The FTT dismissed the application and awarded against Rakusen and his partner.  The FTT granted permission to appeal.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

Awad v Hooley [2021] UKUT 55

The tenant applied for a Rent Repayment Order as the landlord did not have a licence for the property which required one. The tenant had paid part of the rent for the period that the Rent Repayment Order was being applied for but the tenant was also in substantial rent arrears.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) also had concerns about the tenant’s conduct.  The FTT awarded the tenant 25% of the claim as a result of the rent arrears and the tenant’s conduct. The FTT explained that any payment of rent would first be set against the oldest of the arrears in accordance with normal practice, so these were not payments of rent for the period claimed.  The tenant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT)

Vadamalayan v Steward and Others [2020] UKUT 0183

This case was for a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) relating to an unlicensed house in multiple occupation. The First-tier tribunal (FTT) awarded a RRO but the landlord appealed because he thought the amount he had been ordered to pay was excessive given the amount he had spent on the property. The initial decision by the FTT was based on Parker v Waller (2012) UKUT 301 in that section 74(5) of the Housing Act 2004 provided that a RRO in favour of an occupier had to be ‘such an amount as the tribunal considers reasonable in the circumstances’ and it would not be correct to impose a penalty exceeding the landlord’s profit for renting out the property during the relevant period. In Parker v Waller it was cited that

Goldsborough & Anor v CA Property Management Ltd & Ors [2019] UKUT 311

This case relates to a property owner and an intermediate rent to rent company who granted tenancies of an unlicensed house in multiple occupation.  The owners of the property Mr and Mrs Gardner had granted a 5 year lease to CA Property Management Ltd .  The two bedroom flat had been converted into five bedrooms .  Mr and Mrs Gardner were responsible for insuring the property, maintaining the external and internal structure, gas, electrical systems and heating, the safety of electricity and gas supplies to the property and paying the cost of obtaining a gas safety certificate, NICEIC certificate and energy performance certificate.

Two of the tenants made an application to the First-tier Tribunal for a Rent Repayment Order.  Mr Goldsborough applied against both CA Property Management (for harassment and illegal eviction) and Mr and Mrs Gardner (occupation and control of an unlicensed house in multiple occupation).  Mr Swart applied against only Mr and Mrs Gardner on the ground of operating and controlling an unlicensed house in multiple occupation. 

The First-tier Tribunal decided that CA Property Management was the landlord and both Rent Repayment Orders were made against the management company.  The decision was appealed.