15 North Holmes Road, Canterbury, Kent CT1 1QN
CHI/29UC/HMF/2020/0035 · Canterbury · decided 4 May 2021 · rent repayment order
old rules| Offence | Unlicensed HMO |
|---|---|
| Landlord | Individual |
| Applicants | 1 tenant |
| Rent | £468 per month |
| Period the order relates to | 1 Jul 2019 to 26 Jun 2020 |
| Maximum the tribunal could award | not stated as one figure (or not yet checked) |
| Amount the tribunal ordered | £5,382 (1 applicant) |
| Share of the maximum | not stated |
| Tribunal fees to be reimbursed | £300 |
| 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
bills to make the maths work different from his email [77]. … These proceedings demonstrate it was a dishonest scheme. … In his submission the document is a hopeless forgery. Further at clause 2.3.1 [161] he has failed to remove reference to the rent being exclusive as the clause says the rent is inclusive of all utilities. This is a clumsy mistake. … Matters were structured to provide financial gain for the Respondent. He got desperate in these proceedings and embellished his evidence. He knew there were 5 tenants paying rent and that he needed a licence and he knew he was lying in these proceedings. He knew the tenants did not have a copy of the agreement as he had taken it off them. His conduct was particularly egregious. … The tampered document was produced for these proceedings. He ran a positive case that he was not in breach of the requirement to have an HMO licence to defeat the claim and mislead the Tribunal. The tenancy was created to manipulate the proceedings. … He turned up at today’s hearing after the costs had been incurred and then gives up. In his statement [140. 143 and 175] he attacks the Applicant and now withdraws the allegations. … The statement is simply designed to be scurrilous. He knew adverse findings in this Tribunal go on a public document and affect the Applicant’s character. …
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 CT1 1QN · Licensing schemes and register for CT1 1QN
Past decisions are not a prediction. The tribunal decides each case on its facts, including the landlord's and tenant's conduct.