URBAN LETTINGS (LONDON) LTD v LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY
Decision date: 5 March 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 104 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether Urban Lettings (London) Ltd (ULL) was a "person having control" of 12 self-contained units that together formed three s257 HMOs and thus liable under s72(1) of the Housing Act 2004, with a rent repayment order (RRO) made against it. The Upper Tribunal held that, on the agreed facts, ULL received the aggregate rack rent for the units (having rights of access to common parts) and so was a person having control, had committed the offence, and the FTT's RRO of £16,000 was upheld. ULL's s72(5) "reasonable excuse" defence was not allowed because it had not been raised before the FTT and, in any event, the possibility of licence refusal or onerous conditions did not amount to a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The tribunal concluded that a person who receives the aggregate rents for units that share and have rights of access to common parts can be a "person having control" of a s257 HMO under s61(7); there is no material distinction between receiving aggregate room/unit rents with access rights and receiving the rack rent of the HMO as a whole. Also, a s72(5) statutory defence must be pleaded and relied on before the tribunal, and an inability to obtain a licence or comply with its conditions (or a mere prospect of licence refusal/conditioning) does not constitute a "reasonable excuse."
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The UT observed (persuasively but not as binding ratio) that authorities construing broader statutory definitions and the policy purpose of licensing inform the construction of s61(7), and that policy requires someone to fall within "person having control" to avoid defeating licensing and enforcement objectives.