Louise Irvine v Dr Anthony Metcalfe & Ors

Louise Irvine v Dr Anthony Metcalfe & Ors

The Upper Tribunal held that, following Rakusen v Jepsen, a rent repayment order could only be made against the immediate landlord, not a superior landlord, and only for the period after Uptown's liquidation when Mrs Irvine became the immediate landlord. The FTT's failure to consider the reasonable excuse defence and to give adequate reasons was a material error. The Tribunal redetermined the application, found Mrs Irvine liable for the period 7 February to 18 August 2019, rejected her reasonable excuse defence, and substituted a lesser rent repayment order for that period only.

Parties
Appellant: Mrs Louise Irvine; Respondent: Dr Anthony Metcalfe; Respondent: Jodi Patterson; Respondent: Marcus Mills; Respondent: Timothy Weston; Respondent: Isabella McGregor; Respondent: Harry Johnson; Respondent: Daniella Zuccala
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (property Chamber) / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Redetermination After Review and Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; FTT decision set aside; application redetermined; lesser rent repayment order substituted.
Legal Topics
Rent Repayment Orders, Unlicensed HMO, Reasonable Excuse Defence, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Housing Law Landlord and Tenant Law Rent Repayment Orders Unlicensed HMO Reasonable Excuse Defence Jurisdiction of Tribunal

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Louise Irvine

Appellant

Dr Anthony Metcalfe

Respondent

Jodi Patterson

Respondent

Marcus Mills

Respondent

Timothy Weston

Respondent

Isabella McGregor

Respondent

Harry Johnson

Respondent

Daniella Zuccala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (property Chamber) / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Redetermination After Review and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a rent repayment order can be made against a superior landlord under s.40 Housing and Planning Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether the FTT had jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order for periods when the appellant was not the immediate landlord
  3. 3 Whether the FTT failed to consider the defence of reasonable excuse under s.72(5) Housing Act 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal held that, following Rakusen v Jepsen, a rent repayment order could only be made against the immediate landlord, not a superior landlord, and only for the period after Uptown's liquidation when Mrs Irvine became the immediate landlord. The FTT's failure to consider the reasonable excuse defence and to give adequate reasons was a material error. The Tribunal redetermined the application, found Mrs Irvine liable for the period 7 February to 18 August 2019, rejected her reasonable excuse defence, and substituted a lesser rent repayment order for that period only.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; FTT decision set aside; application redetermined; lesser rent repayment order substituted.

Orders

  • Rent repayment order against Mrs Irvine for the period 7 February to 18 August 2019 in the following sums: Dr Metcalfe £2,080; Ms Patterson £1,620; Mr Mills £1,690; Mr Weston £1,500; Ms McGregor £1,470; Mr Johnson £1,440; Ms Zuccala nil.