Case Law
What we know about Rent Repayment Order judgments:
2 Upper Tribunal judgments have guided the way in
which Residential Property Tribunals interpret the law: Parker v Waller
[2012] UKUT 301 (LC) and Fallon v Wilson & Ors [2014] UKUT 0300 (LC).
Mainly Parker v Waller.
But both cases pre-date the new 2016 legislation
which was brought in to strengthen punishments for rogue landlords as
the previous legislation (2004) was perceived to be inadequate.
Main points of interest to post-2016 from the above
cases:
► Mortgage payments by landlords need not
be considered in deductions from an RRO. This is often misreported but
here is the text of the President's decision:
[as the mortgage was more recent than the house purchase] "I am not
satisfied, therefore, that the mortgage costs should be brought into the
reckoning." p21.Parker v Waller
There has been no clear indication that mortgage costs can be accounted
for: we would argue that they are not an additional cost caused by
letting to tenants. By allowing mortgage costs, a tribunal would be
rewarding the property ownership by a landlord that has broken the law.
►
The RRO is to be seen as a punishment of the landlord and the amount
awarded should consider any previous fine imposed for the same offence.
Consequently, RRO awards may be lower for landlords already fined.
►
The fact that a tenant has
'benefited' from accommodation should not
affect the level of RRO awarded, as that is a necessary precursor for
bringing the action in the first place
►
A professional landlord and/or one using a professional agent should be
judged more harshly than an amateur: they must have known what they were
doing. By the same token, any evidence that shows that a landlord
deliberately ignored the legislation should increase the sum of the RRO
awarded. Also, having become aware of their offence, any delay in
applying for a licence should also increase the RRO awarded
►
Parker v Waller discounted evidence of bad landlord behaviour in other
respects, such as harassment, arguing that only behaviour relating to
the licensing offence should be considered. However, the new legislation
(2016) specifically targets what are termed "rogue" landlords and allows
judgment on harassment allegations as well as licensing offences
►
A corollary to the disallowance of consideration of landlord behaviour
in other respects is that tenant behaviour has to be considered
completely irrelevant with respect to flouting of licensing laws which
is obviously the responsibility only of the landlord.
► Get information on RRO judgments here.....sorry but RPT links only provide out of date judgments (pre-2016). We have been requesting that these be made available & will update with working links ASAP