Ellen Stokki & Ors v Ahmed Abu Choudhury

For the purpose of a rent repayment order, the statutory period of 12 months ending on the application date includes the whole of that date and therefore begins at midnight on the preceding day. The corresponding date rule does not apply. Where a continuing housing offence ceases during a day, fractions of a day must be disregarded. In determining which part of the day to disregard, the court should resolve the uncertainty in favour of the landlord because the issue concerns criminal liability. The offence is therefore treated as not having been committed on the day during which it ceased, even though it was committed earlier that day.

The appellants appealed against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which held that it had no jurisdiction to make rent repayment orders because the applications were made outside the period specified by section 41(2)(b) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The appellants occupied an unlicensed house in multiple occupation. One occupant left on 18 September 2022, reducing the number of occupants below the licensing threshold. The appellants applied to the FTT on 17 September 2023. The central issue was whether the offence was committed on 18 September 2022.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The FTT had no jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order.
2. The appellants accepted that the 12-month period ending on the application date began at 00:00 on the preceding day. The corresponding date rule did not apply. Thus, the relevant period began on 18 September 2022.
3. The offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 was a continuing offence. One of its elements ceased to exist when the fourth occupant left the property, but the precise time of departure was unknown.
4. Following Moh v Rimal Properties Limited [2024] UKUT 324 (LC), fractions of a day had to be disregarded. The issue was which part of the day should be disregarded: the period before or after the offence ceased.
5. The uncertainty had to be resolved in favour of the landlord. The facilitation of rent repayment order applications was not overriding. Criminal liability was the more important consideration. The landlord was therefore treated as not having committed the offence throughout 18 September 2022, despite the offence having existed earlier that day.
6. The comparison with unlawful eviction was immaterial. The difficulty arose only because this was a continuing offence, and did not create an inconsistency with once-and-for-all offences.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was dismissed. The FTT’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order was upheld.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): The FTT held that the offence was not committed during the relevant 12-month period and refused jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order.