Edward Acheampong v Patricia Sanchez Roman & Ors
Decision date: 5 September 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 239 (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 Upper Tribunal decision considers how First-tier Tribunals should calculate rent repayment orders (RROs) under the Housing Act 2004 where landlords failed licensing obligations. The UT held tribunals must start by assessing the seriousness of the offence (not treat full rent as the presumptive starting point), deduct tenant-only utilities, select an appropriate proportion of net rent as the starting point, and then adjust for conduct, financial circumstances and convictions under s.44(4). The UT substituted a 75% net-rent award in Choudhury (£12,600) and set aside the FTT’s quantification in Acheampong, remitting it for further factual findings on utilities and the landlord’s finances.
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 binding ratio is the four-step methodology for fixing RRO amounts: (1) ascertain total rent for the relevant period; (2) deduct utilities paid only by the tenant; (3) assess the seriousness of the offence and select an appropriate proportion of the net rent as the starting point (full rent is not the default); and (4) adjust that starting point for the parties’ conduct, the landlord’s financial circumstances and any relevant convictions under s.44(4).
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 indicates as non-binding guidance that there is no fixed "rate card" of percentages for RROs (awards vary by context) and that tribunals should expect landlords to provide evidence of utilities but may estimate deductions if necessary. These points were presented as examples of application rather than strict rules.