Summary
In a very important case, that will be relied upon in subsequent cases as setting out the law, Karol Hart represented Drumlin Limited. He applied to discharge an application to add/substitute a party to an application for a Rent Repayment Order, and the First Tier Tribunal agreed, refusing to allow the application.
The case made clear that the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) acting in its appellate capacity, cannot add/substitute a new respondent to a Rent Repayment Order application outside of the strict 12-month time limit in section 41(2)(b) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
Background and Argument
Karol represented the Freehold Owner of a property, a Limited Company, and its Director, during October 2020 after they had been served with a Rent Repayment Order application by four tenants that had been living at a flat within the London Borough of Camden Council. The application asserted that an offence had been committed under Section 72(2) of the Housing Act 2004, in that the property was a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) , and that the Landlord had failed to Licence the property, as required by Camden’s Additional Licencing Scheme. Karol noted though that the Freeholder was not the appropriate Landlord and should not be the subject of the application. This was the main basis of the argument opposing the Rent Repayment Order and an application to Strike Out the Claim was made to the First Tier Tribunal.
The Applicants response was to apply to the Tribunal to add/substitute Drumlin Limited as a party to the application. After hearing oral submissions, the Tribunal refused to allow the addition of the party on the basis that the application was outside the 12-month time limit. The applicants appealed the decision through their representative, Justice for Tenants, to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and the First Tier Tribunal requested guidance on the issue, stating they had initially wanted to allow the addition of Drumlin Limited. Karol was then instructed by Drumlin Limited, and argued that the case involved similar circumstances to at paragraphs 47-52 of the case of William Hill Organisation Limited v Crossrail Limited [2016] UKUT 275 (LC) and therefore the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to add/substitute a party.
Result
The case was then sent back to the First Tier Tribunal and the result was the Rent Repayment Order application for £39,000 was struck out, with the Landlord having nothing to pay on this application.
In need of advice?
This case demonstrates the need to instruct experienced representatives in these types of cases as early as possible. Please contact our specialist team by email hmolawyers@freemanssolicitors.net, or by calling 020 7935 3522, and ask for Karol Hart, Michael Field or Julian Hunt, if you need help in this area .
Whatever your personal circumstances the above is only a guide and we would advise you to contact us to obtain definitive advice as you will appreciate that each person’s circumstances are unique to them.