Taqeer Shah & Anor v Linda McLaughlin & Ors

An appellate tribunal should interfere with first-instance findings of fact based on oral evidence only where the decision was plainly wrong: the question is whether no reasonable tribunal could have reached it. The same restraint applies when the appeal is from a tribunal which has not reheard the evidence.

A landlord’s alleged reasonable excuse for operating an unlicensed HMO must be supported by evidence. A rent repayment order may be assessed by applying the established four-step guidance and considering the seriousness of the offence and the parties’ conduct. An appellate tribunal should not substitute its own assessment of quantum without identifying an error of principle, fact or approach.

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ordered Mr Taqeer Shah to repay £21,000 to six former tenants of a house owned by TSMB Ltd. It found that the property was an unlicensed HMO and that Mr Shah, rather than the company, was the relevant landlord for the purposes of the rent repayment order.

Mr Shah and TSMB Ltd appealed. They challenged the findings about the identity of the landlord, the rejection of a reasonable-excuse defence based on alleged deception by the letting agent, and the assessment of the award at 70% of the rent paid. The central questions were whether the FTT had been plainly wrong and whether it had erred in law when assessing reasonable excuse or quantum.

1. Appeal dismissed. The FTT’s findings that Mr Shah was the landlord and that the property had been let to six unrelated tenants were findings of fact based substantially on oral evidence and documentary material.
2. The Upper Tribunal applied the approach stated in Cook v Thomas [2010] EWCA Civ 227, Clarke v Edinburgh and District Tramways Co Ltd 1919 SC (HL) 35, The Ikarian Reefer [1995] Lloyd’s Rep 455, and Assicurazioni Generali Spa v The Arab Insurance Group [2003] 1 WLR 577. An appellate tribunal must recognise the first-instance tribunal’s advantage in assessing witnesses and should intervene only where the decision was plainly wrong.
3. That expression does not mean merely that the appellate tribunal would have reached a different conclusion. Applying Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, the issue is whether no reasonable tribunal could have reached the decision. The evidence entitled the FTT to infer that Mr Shah was the landlord and that TSMB Ltd received rent as his agent.
4. The alleged deception by the letting agents did not establish a reasonable excuse. Once the FTT’s findings about the letting and tenancy agreement were accepted, the defence was unsupported by evidence of Mr Shah’s instructions, reports from the agent or relevant correspondence.
5. The FTT applied the four-step guidance in Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC). Its assessment of 70% of the rent reflected the evidence concerning the offence and the parties’ conduct. The Upper Tribunal identified no specific error in that assessment and declined to substitute its own view.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Appeal from the First-tier Tribunal dismissed.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): On 3 April 2023, ordered Mr Shah to repay £21,000 by six rent repayment orders.