The Upper Tribunal (UT) has provided a clear legal precedent confirming the timeliness of an application for a rent repayment order (RRO), establishing that a submission by email is valid regardless of whether it is sent outside of standard office hours.
Facts:
Ms. Jamroz lived in a flat from July 2006 to 10 April 2023 and was a tenant from 2015. Her landlord was Mr. Mohammed Ali, who had purchased the property in 2004. The property is located in an area that was designated for selective licensing, and the landlord did not hold the required licence. The designation for selective licensing expired on 28 February 2023, which meant that this was the last date on which the landlord could have committed the offence of managing the property without a selective licence.
According to the Housing and Planning Act 2016, a tenant has 12 months from the date of the offence to apply for an RRO. Ms. Jamroz’s application was submitted via email at 11:15 pm on 27 February 2024.
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) initially found that the application was out of time, likely due to the late hour of submission, and concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Ms. Jamroz was granted permission to appeal this decision to the UT.
Decision:
The UT allowed the appeal, ruling that the FTT did have jurisdiction to make an RRO in favour of the tenant, Ms. Jamroz, because her application was not made out of time.
In light of Gorgievski, the application was not out of time, having been made on 27 February 2024. The Gorgievski ruling, which is binding on FTT, clarified that an application is "made" on the date it is sent by email, even if it is sent outside of normal office hours. This legal finding directly contradicted the FTT's original decision.
As the appeal was successful, the UT ruled that the FTT's alternative findings on the merits of the case could now take effect. This meant the landlord was liable to repay the determined amount of rent and fees to the tenant, a sum of £2,790, together with the FTT fees of £320.
Implications:
The primary implication of this case is that an application for an RRO is considered timely as long as it is sent to the FTT by email within the 12-month statutory period, regardless of the time of day or whether it is sent outside of normal office hours. This provides clarity for tenants and their representatives alike, ensuring that a last-minute submission isn't automatically deemed to be out of time.
For landlords, the implication is a reinforcement of their liability for housing offences. The ruling confirms that even if a selective licensing designation has expired, the offender can still be ordered to repay rent for the period in which the offence was committed, as long as the tenant's application is made within the 12-month window.