Sonja Mitterhuber v Christina Lopez Hernandez & Anor
Decision date: 19 June 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 194 (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 rent repayment orders arising from an alleged unlicensed HMO at 321 Haslebury Road and whether a third named occupier lived there as their only or main residence (the HMO "standard test" element (c)). The Upper Tribunal refused fresh evidence, set aside the FTT's finding on that third occupier as lacking evidential basis, and substituted a decision refusing the rent repayment applications. The FTT's 20% repayment order was therefore quashed.
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: high
A finding that a person "occupied" premises is not sufficient, without supporting evidence, to establish they occupied it as their only or main residence for HMO/licensing offences; where a crucial element (here, the occupier's only/main residence) lacks evidential support, the tribunal's factual finding will be set aside.
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 tribunal observed that pragmatic inferences about an occupier's main residence may be drawn where co-occupiers do not cooperate, but there must still be some circumstances from which the inference can properly be drawn; applicants should seek corroborative evidence from other occupiers when relying on their reported occupation.