{"id":291,"date":"2024-02-14T06:38:48","date_gmt":"2024-02-14T06:38:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/?p=291"},"modified":"2024-02-14T06:38:49","modified_gmt":"2024-02-14T06:38:49","slug":"unite-students-appeal-dismissed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/2024\/02\/14\/unite-students-appeal-dismissed\/","title":{"rendered":"Unite students appeal dismissed"},"content":{"rendered":"

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This was an appeal at the Upper Tribunal<\/span><\/a> (Lands Chamber) (UT) brought by Unite Group PLC against the lower tribunal\u2019s decision to make a RRO against them\/the amount of such an award.<\/p>\n

Their appeal grounds were:
.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
1.<\/span>That Haringey had failed to take account of Purpose-built Student Accommodation (PBSA) in the borough in designating its Additional licensing scheme<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
2.<\/span> That Haringey had failed to consult according to s56(3) of The Housing Act 2004 (HA)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
3.<\/span>That the FtT erred in law by suggesting that the appellant\u2019s position on consultation amounted to a contention that it was entitled to \u201cspecial consultation treatment\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
4.<\/span>That FtT had regard to an irrelevant consideration when it suggested that the appellant could have addressed any failure of consultation by judicial review proceedings.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Dealt with as follows:
.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On ground 1, Unite did not provide any evidence for this but only relied on the surprise expressed in emails from front line staff at Haringey when Unite applied.\u00a0 The staff were unlikely to have been involved in the designation\u2019s details and policy. That the same staff were surprised was by Unite\u2019s failure to license was not astonishing (\u00a734):<\/p>\n

“…the housing team responsible for licensing HMOs were taken aback to receive,<\/em> three years into the period of the scheme<\/em><\/strong>, a request from the appellant to licence 221 HMOs of which the officers had previously been unaware<\/em>” (our emphasis).<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Ground 4 was addressed in relation to the above: had Unite called for a judicial review (JR) of the Additional licensing scheme designation it might then have had evidence for ground 1. But it did not, so had not. It was not the FtT\u2019s suggestion that Unite should have called for a JR years after the event.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Unite had produced no evidence for ground 2 that Haringey\u2019s consultation had been defective in any way, as for ground 1.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On ground 3, UT found that Unite had misinterpreted the FtT judgment which had instead criticised Unite\u2019s \u201cpassive approach to its licensing responsibilities<\/em>\u201d. In a telling aside, UT commented:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe FTT\u2019s characterisation of the appellant\u2019s case was not inaccurate.<\/em>\u201d \u00a740
.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On the cross appeals, we had argued the following in written submissions:
.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
1.<\/span>That the FtT should have given more consideration to the As\u2019 reports of conditions at the property in setting the award<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
2.<\/span>That utilities paid by the landlord should not have been deducted from the award<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
3.<\/span>That licensing offences should be considered as amongst the most serious offences under the RRO legislation<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
4.<\/span>That FtT did not sufficiently consider that professional landlords should have larger awards made against them<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In the end we did not pursue ground 3 and grounds 1 & 4 were refused permission. So it was all down to whether utility payments should have been deducted.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

There were 2 legs to this argument:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span> that R had not provided sufficient evidence for their utility payments (actually none at all- just figures on a blank sheet of paper).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>That it was wrong in principle to deduct such amounts based on the wording and interpretation of the legislation<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On the deduction of utilities, UT dismissed our arguments:
.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>The UT\u2019s statement in Vadamalayan, at \u00a715 that \u201cThere is no reason why the landlord\u2019s costs in meeting his obligations under the lease should be set off against the cost of meeting his obligation to comply with a rent repayment order<\/em>\u201d had been taken out of context<\/div>\n