Flat 1_25b Copperfield Street SE1 0EN
LON/00BE/HMF/2022/0044 · Southwark · decided 20 Jan 2023 · rent repayment order
old rulesfigures not yet checked| Offence | Unlicensed HMO |
|---|---|
| Landlord | Company and individuals: Trepel (No. 1 London) Ltd |
| Applicants | 5 tenants |
| Rent | not stated as one figure |
| Period the order relates to | 19 Sep 2020 to 19 Feb 2021 |
| Maximum the tribunal could award | not stated as one figure; £360 then deducted for utilities |
| Amount the tribunal ordered | £2,811.31 per applicant on average; £14,056.56 in total for 5 applicants |
| Share of the maximum | 80%, as the tribunal stated it |
| 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 amount hasn't been checked yet and is left out of the statistics, so compare it with the original.
From the tribunal's reasons on the amount
The Tribunal therefore went on to consider the amount, if any, which it should order the First Respondent to pay. … The first step is to ascertain the whole of the rent for the relevant period. Rent. At pages 142 to 145 there is a schedule of the rent paid by the Applicants. The Tribunal was satisfied that this schedule accurately reflected the documentary evidence of payment at pages 146 to 251. Paragraphs 36 to 42 deal further with the question of the rent paid. … The amount initially stated to be recoverable was £5,738.60. However, this was reduced by £203.33 as this sum had been paid before 19 September 2020 and so could not be included as rent paid during the relevant period (see para 39). At the end of the period, although rent for a whole month was paid on 26 January 2021, only 25 days fall within the relevant period, so a pro-rata calculation needs to be performed. … The schedule of payments shows that the monthly payments made were on occasions greater than the contractual rent. On one occasion there was an excess of £8, which has not been explained, and on three other occasions there was an excess of £10.40. This is said to be the cost of internet provision. … The Tribunal did not accept that the additional £10.40 charge for internet was rent for the purposes of this application. …
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 SE1 0EN · Licensing schemes and register for SE1 0EN
Past decisions are not a prediction. The tribunal decides each case on its facts, including the landlord's and tenant's conduct.