Jagtar Singh Aytan & Ors v Theo Moore & Ors

Jagtar Singh Aytan & Ors v Theo Moore & Ors

The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by treating the maximum rent as the starting point and only making deductions for specified factors, thereby failing to exercise its discretion as required by section 44(4) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the guidance in Williams v Parmar. The landlords did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to obtain an HMO licence as ignorance of the law and reliance on agents without clear contractual responsibility do not suffice.

Parties
Appellant: Jagtar Singh Aytan; Appellant: Nirmala Devi Aytan; Appellant: Sajjan Singh Aytan; Respondent: Theo Moore; Respondent: Jack Rudman; Respondent: Elliot Schneiderman; Appellant: Ian Wilson; Respondent: Michael Arrow; Respondent: Adele Edwards; Respondent: Mark Wiselka; Respondent: Owen Stoneman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; quantum of rent repayment orders set aside and substituted.
Legal Topics
Rent Repayment Orders, Houses in Multiple Occupation (hmo) Licensing, Reasonable Excuse Defence, Quantum of Rent Repayment, Tribunal Discretion
Housing Law Landlord and Tenant Law Rent Repayment Orders Houses in Multiple Occupation (hmo) Licensing Reasonable Excuse Defence Quantum of Rent Repayment Tribunal Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jagtar Singh Aytan

Appellant

Nirmala Devi Aytan

Appellant

Sajjan Singh Aytan

Appellant

Theo Moore

Respondent

Jack Rudman

Respondent

Elliot Schneiderman

Respondent

Ian Wilson

Appellant

Michael Arrow

Respondent

Adele Edwards

Respondent

Mark Wiselka

Respondent

Owen Stoneman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Appeal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in its approach to the quantum of rent repayment orders under the Housing and Planning Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether the landlords had a reasonable excuse for failing to obtain an HMO licence

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by treating the maximum rent as the starting point and only making deductions for specified factors, thereby failing to exercise its discretion as required by section 44(4) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the guidance in Williams v Parmar. The landlords did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to obtain an HMO licence as ignorance of the law and reliance on agents without clear contractual responsibility do not suffice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; quantum of rent repayment orders set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • Aytan appellants to repay 85% of £31,200 (£26,520) divided equally between the three respondents.
  • Ian Wilson to repay 90% of the sums ordered by the FTT to each respondent: Edwards £5,468, Wiselka £5,468, Stoneman £5,119, Arrow £1,340.