Ellen Stokki & Ors v Ahmed Abu Choudhury

For the purposes of a rent repayment order, where a continuing housing offence ceases during a day, fractions of that day are disregarded in the landlord’s favour. The offence is treated as not having been committed on that day. This approach reflects the criminal character of the liability and avoids imposing a serious penalty where the offence ceased at an unknown time during the day. The relevant 12-month period under section 41(2)(b) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 runs from the start of the day following the corresponding date in the preceding year.

The appellants appealed against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which held that it had no jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order because the application was one day late. The appellants had occupied an unlicensed house in multiple occupation. One occupant left on 18 September 2022, reducing the number of occupants below the licensing threshold. The application was made on 17 September 2023.

The First-tier Tribunal followed Moh v Rimal Properties Limited [2024] UKUT 324 (LC). The central issue was whether the offence was committed on 18 September 2022.

1. The appeal failed. The First-tier Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order.
2. Section 41(2)(b) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 requires the offence to have been committed during the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made. The period ending on 17 September 2023 began at 00:00 on 18 September 2022. The appellants accepted that the corresponding date rule did not extend the period to include an additional day.
3. The offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 was a continuing offence. It ceased when the departure of one occupant meant that the property no longer required a licence. The precise time of departure was unknown.
4. Following Moh v Rimal Properties Limited [2024] UKUT 324 (LC), fractions of a day were to be disregarded. Where the choice was between treating the landlord as committing the offence throughout the day on which it ceased, or treating the offence as not committed throughout that day, the latter approach was required. The criminal character of the liability was more important than facilitating rent repayment order applications.
5. The comparison with a once-and-for-all offence, such as unlawful eviction, did not alter the result. The timing difficulty arose only because this was a continuing offence.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): held that the application for a rent repayment order was out of time and that it had no jurisdiction.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the appeal and upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s conclusion.