Jason Aaron Parker v Mr R Walker. Mr C Hobbs. Miss K McKimm, Mr A Rowland, Miss R Fraser and Mr R Philp
Decision date: 26 November 2012
Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 301 (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 (RROs) made after the landlord ran an unlicensed HMO. The Upper Tribunal found the residential property tribunal erred in treating the full rent as presumptively repayable and in ordering repayment for periods after the landlord had applied for a licence (21 January 2011). The President re-took the decision, limited the recoverable period to before 21 January 2011, calculated the landlord's profit and ordered repayment equal to 75% of that profit less the fine, apportioned among the six occupiers (total £4,771; Waller £967; Hobbs £1,060; McKimm £645; Rowland £589; Fraser £447; Philp £1,060).
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
Tribunals must identify the period "during which the offence was being committed" and may only order RROs for rent paid in that period; they must exercise discretion to award a reasonable repayment under s.74(5)–(6), taking account of purpose (including preventing landlord profit) and relevant matters (such as landlord benefit/profit and costs), and there is no presumption that the maximum (full rent received) must be ordered.
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 judgment (drawing on Hansard) suggested occupier RROs have multiple purposes—civil sanction, preventing landlord profit from illegal lettings, and addressing rent-withholding issues. It also indicated tenant occupation is generally not a reason to reduce restitution, tenant misconduct might be, and that utilities/council tax are periodical payments but should only be included where the landlord demonstrably benefited.