Hakan Tuyunuklu v Mohammed Akmal

Under section 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, a tenant cannot recover by rent repayment order the rent paid through universal credit. If only part of the rent is so paid, the statutory bar applies only to that part. A tenant must explain the relevant payment position clearly. Where the tenant fails to do so and conducts the hearing in a manner that makes continuation impossible, the tribunal may conclude the hearing without further opportunity for clarification. Such a hearing is fair where its termination results from the tenant’s own conduct.

The appellant applied to the First-tier Tribunal for a rent repayment order against his landlord. The application concerned alleged harassment and overlapped with an earlier application. The First-tier Tribunal restricted the period under consideration and then dismissed the application after understanding that the appellant’s rent had been paid by universal credit.

On appeal, the appellant argued that only part of his rent had been met by universal credit, that he should have been allowed to provide a breakdown, and that the hearing had been unfairly terminated after he challenged the tribunal’s impartiality. The central issues were the effect of partial universal-credit payments and whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law or denied a fair hearing.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision stood.
2. Section 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 prevents recovery by a tenant of the amount of rent paid through universal credit. Where only part of the rent is paid in that way, only that part is excluded. The Tribunal noted, without deciding, that further argument would be useful on whether rent paid from non-housing elements of universal credit should be treated differently.
3. Rakusen v Jepson and others [2023] UKSC 9 did not establish that a tenant whose rent had been paid by universal credit could recover it through a rent repayment order.
4. The First-tier Tribunal was not informed clearly that only part of the rent had been met by universal credit. The appellant’s explanations were unclear, and the relevant information was absent from his written application.
5. The appellant’s conduct, including accusations of bias, a recusal request, repeated disputes with the tribunal and an accusation that it was above the law, made continuation of the hearing impossible. The judge was entitled to conclude the hearing. The appellant’s lack of opportunity to explain the position further resulted from his own conduct, so the hearing had been fair.
6. The First-tier Tribunal had made no error of law. The appeal therefore failed.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Appeal dismissed; the First-tier Tribunal’s decision stood.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): On 9 October 2025, the application was dismissed after the tribunal concluded that the appellant could not recover rent paid by universal credit.