Andrew Kemp & Ors v Dip Systems (UK) Limited
Decision date: 15 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 233 (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 whether a landlord is to be treated as having “committed” an unlicensed HMO offence for the purposes of the 12‑month time limit in s.41(2) of the 2016 Act while a statutory reasonable‑excuse defence under the Housing Act 2004 was available. The FTT found the landlord had a reasonable excuse for the period 16 November–15 December 2022, treated the last commission as 15 November 2022, and dismissed the tenants’ out‑of‑time rent‑repayment application; the Upper Tribunal upheld that decision and dismissed the tenants’ appeal. The appeal therefore failed and the application remained out of time.
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 tribunal and Upper Tribunal concluded that where a statutory defence of reasonable excuse (s.72(5) of the 2004 Act) applies, the person is not to be regarded as having “committed” the relevant HMO offence for the purpose of the 12‑month limitation in s.41(2) of the 2016 Act; the same meaning of “committed” should be applied consistently across the rent‑repayment statutory scheme, so the limitation period runs from the end of the period during which the conduct is excused or not blameworthy.
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 court noted, without treating it as decisive, the conceptual distinction between a “freestanding” defence and a “defence on the merits,” and observed practical uncertainties for applicants who may be unaware of a landlord’s reasonable excuse, but held such concerns do not justify departing from the statutory construction adopted.