Amlendu Kumar v Nikola Kolev & Ors
Decision date: 29 August 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 255 (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 a First-tier Tribunal rent repayment order requiring the freehold owner, Mr Kumar, to repay rent to occupiers of an unlicensed HMO. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the FTT had no jurisdiction to make RROs against Mr Kumar because the occupiers paid rent to an intermediate tenant/manager (LML), not to him; the UT also found the FTT had erred in failing to address the defence of reasonable excuse and had miscalculated the award. The FTT’s order was set aside and discharged.
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 rent repayment order under s.40(2) of the 2016 Act targets the landlord who received the rent payable under the tenancy from which repayment is sought; where occupiers paid rent only to an intermediate tenant, the superior landlord who did not receive that rent cannot be ordered to repay it. Factual dealings (continued payments to, and acceptance of payments by, an intermediary) can support treating that intermediary as the immediate landlord for RRO purposes.
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 declined to decide whether more than one person can be a "person having control" under s.263(1) of the 2004 Act, saying that question should be left to a case where it matters to the outcome. The court also indicated that reasonable-excuse enquiries focus on whether the defendant had a reasonable excuse in all the circumstances (e.g. reliance on an apparently reputable managing tenant, contractual protections, absence from the country), not merely on whether greater supervision would have been prudent.