285 Manchester Road, London E14, 3DP
LON/00BG/HMF/2021/0233 · Tower Hamlets · decided 11 Jul 2022 · rent repayment order
old rules| Offence | Unlicensed HMO |
|---|---|
| Landlord | Company and individuals: Avanti Enterprises Ltd |
| Applicants | 3 tenants |
| Rent | not stated as one figure |
| Maximum the tribunal could award | not stated as one figure (or not yet checked) |
| Amount the tribunal ordered | £3,096.67 per applicant on average; £9,290 in total for 3 applicants |
| Share of the maximum | 70%, 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 maximum is left out of the statistics until it has been checked.
From the tribunal's reasons on the amount
accordance with this section. (2) The amount must relate to rent paid during the period mentioned in the table. If the order is made on the ground that the landlord has committed an offence mentioned in row 1 or 2 of the table in section 40(3) an offence mentioned in row 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 of the table in section 40(3) the amount must relate to the rent paid by the tenant in respect of the period of 12 months ending with the date of the offence a period not exceeding 12 months, during which the landlord was committing the offence (3) The amount that the landlord may be required to repay in respect of a period must not exceed— (a) the rent paid in respect of that period, less (b) any relevant award of universal credit paid (to any person) in respect of rent under the tenancy during that period. … These are: (a) was the property an HMO during the occupation of the Applicants? (b) if so, was the property licensed? (c) which of the Respondents is liable? (d) should a RRO be made against that Respondent and, if so, for what amount? These are dealt with in turn below. Hearing. The remote video hearing in this case took place on 22 June 2022. … The Third Respondent did not appear and was not represented. … It should be said that the Tribunal was not assisted by the rather haphazard and incomplete evidence filed and served by both parties. …
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
Past decisions are not a prediction. The tribunal decides each case on its facts, including the landlord's and tenant's conduct.