308-310 Cherry Hinton Road, Cambridge CB1 7AU
CAM/12UB/HMF/2019/0011 · Cambridge · decided 4 Feb 2020 · rent repayment order
old rules| Offence | Unlicensed HMO |
|---|---|
| Landlord | Company and individuals |
| Applicants | 8 tenants |
| Rent | not stated as one figure |
| Period the order relates to | 1 Oct 2018 to ? |
| Maximum the tribunal could award | not stated as one figure (or not yet checked) |
| Amount the tribunal ordered | £2,166.75 per applicant on average; £17,334 in total for 8 applicants |
| Share of the maximum | not stated |
| Tribunal fees to be reimbursed | £1,000 |
| Rules | Old rules (offence before 1 May 2026): maximum 12 months' rent. |
Read from the PDF automatically. Amounts are totals for the decision, across all its applicants; the maximum is left out of the statistics until it has been checked.
From the tribunal's reasons on the amount
account the factors spelt out in paragraph 4 above. Finally, the applicants had requested that the tribunal order the respondents to repay the application and hearing fees of £1,000. Were the respondents “persons having control” of the property? … Rack-rent is defined in section 263(2) as “a rent which is not less than two-thirds of the full net annual value of the premises”. … In the amended defence she had calculated that the rent received by them was in the region of £139,392 per annum, based on 20 rooms let 100% of the time at £135 per week for a double room, £110 per week for a single room and £170 per week for a studio. Two thirds of that figure was around £92,928. In the circumstances the respondents did not meet the definition in the 2004 Act. … The tribunal pointed out that the two-thirds limit in the 2004 Act was of the full net annual value rather than any gross income. … The lease terms and the evidence of the agreement record that it was a full repairing and insuring lease. In the circumstances, the tribunal determines that the first respondent meets the definition of a “person having control” as set out in section 263 of the 2004 Act. The second and third respondent are liable for any offences of their company under section 251 of the 2004 Act. …
An extract from the part of the decision that sets the amount. To keep people's names out, any sentence that might contain one is left out (marked …). The full reasons are in the original decision.
The original
Other rent repayment orders near CB1 7AU · Licensing schemes and register for CB1 7AU
Past decisions are not a prediction. The tribunal decides each case on its facts, including the landlord's and tenant's conduct.