Dr Noshaba Khiljee v London Borough of Waltham Forest
Decision date: 7 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 171 (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 concerns whether "rack-rent" in the statutory definition of "person having control" of an HMO must be calculated by reference to the lawful use of the premises (here a single-family dwelling) rather than the unlawful HMO use, and whether aggregate payments from lettable parts can be treated as the premises' rack-rent. The First-tier Tribunal held rack-rent should be assessed by reference to the lawful use and that aggregated payments could represent the rack-rent of the whole, making Dr Khiljee a person having control; her reasonable-excuse defence was not appealed. The Upper Tribunal's determination of that single statutory construction point will decide whether the FTT was correct.
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
The judgment endorses the view that, for the purpose of identifying a "person having control", rack-rent should be assessed by reference to the lawful use of the premises (so that unlawful use cannot inflate the lawful rack-rent) and that, in appropriate cases, aggregate payments received for occupation of lettable parts of a property can represent the rack-rent of the premises as a whole.
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 (obiter) that it is unnecessary to distinguish between the aggregate of rents for lettable parts and the rack-rent of the whole where the lettable accommodation represents the whole premises, and that the statutory scheme contemplates multiple persons falling within "person having control" or "person managing" rather than identifying a single optimal liable person.