Glorell Marie Bannister v Joseph Akinremi

A rent repayment order under section 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 may be made only against the landlord under the relevant tenancy. A person who manages or controls an unlicensed HMO may commit the offence in section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004, but that does not permit an order against that person unless they are also the landlord.

The First-tier Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order against an agent or fellow tenant who collects rent and administers the property on the landlord’s behalf, where another person is the landlord.

The respondent sought a rent repayment order for rent and a deposit paid while occupying a room in an unlicensed HMO. The appellant occupied another room. The freeholder was Mrs Ramdoo.

The First-tier Tribunal found that the appellant let rooms, collected rent and deposits, arranged repairs, and purported to terminate the respondent’s tenancy. It held that she was a person having control of the property and made a rent repayment order against her.

On appeal, the appellant contended that she was not the landlord and retained neither the rent nor the deposit. The central issue was whether an order could be made against a person found to be the landlord’s agent and a person having control, but not the landlord.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s rent repayment order was set aside because it had no jurisdiction to make it against the appellant.

2. Section 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 confines a rent repayment order to the landlord under the tenancy. That jurisdictional limit applies even where the relevant offence is the unlicensed-HMO offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004.

3. A person having control of, or managing, an HMO may commit the section 72(1) offence without being the landlord. Such a person can be the subject of a financial penalty under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004, but cannot be ordered to repay rent under section 40 unless they are the landlord.

4. The First-tier Tribunal had found that Mrs Ramdoo was the landlord and that the appellant acted as her agent. Although the respondent dealt with the appellant and paid rent to her, those facts did not displace the finding that Mrs Ramdoo was the immediate landlord. The order against the appellant was accordingly invalid.

5. It was unnecessary to determine the appellant’s further challenge to the amount ordered to be repaid.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed the appeal and set aside the rent repayment order made against the appellant.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): In proceedings under reference LON/OOAP/HMF/2024/0149, found that the appellant was a person having control of an unlicensed HMO and made a rent repayment order against her.