Hannah Chinn & Ors v Marie-Louise Høilund-Carlsen & Anor
Decision date: 10 March 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 110 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This case concerns a rent repayment order (RRO) after tenants occupied a flat that, by local designation and by having three separate households, required an HMO licence that the landlords did not obtain. The First-tier Tribunal found the landlords had awareness a licence was required, rejected reliance on their letting agent as a reasonable excuse, and awarded 35% of rent (£7,225); the tenants appealed seeking a higher award and the Upper Tribunal found the FTT's reasoning on mitigation unclear and required re‑examination. The appeal was permitted as it was arguable the FTT erred in treating the landlords' non‑professional status as mitigation despite its finding of awareness of the licensing obligation.
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
From the judgment notes, an RRO may be imposed where a required HMO licence was not obtained, and reliance on a letting agent's advice does not automatically constitute a reasonable excuse. In assessing quantum under the statutory factors, a tribunal may consider landlord and tenant conduct and landlord financial/circumstantial matters, including non‑professional or small‑scale status, but such mitigation is only coherent if consistent with factual findings (for example, lack of awareness of licensing obligations).
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 notes indicate obiter observations that a landlord's small‑scale or non‑professional status can be relevant mitigation only if lack of awareness of licensing obligations is established, and that where a tribunal's findings are internally inconsistent, appellate review should re‑examine whether a purported mitigating factor is inconsistent with other factual findings.
Warning
- The chunk ends mid‑sentence and the Upper Tribunal's final substituted decision is not contained here; some conclusions are provisional. The provided notes end mid‑discussion and do not contain the Upper Tribunal's full substituted decision; the record is therefore materially incomplete.