Leibel v Baird CHI/29UC/HMF/2020/0035 – How One Tenant Won £5,382 Against Their Landlord

“Disclaimer:Tenant Support UK is not a law firm and does not provide regulated legal advice. All content on this website is for general informational purposes only, based on publicly available legal guidance and personal experience. If you need legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult a qualified solicitor or a trusted housing advice service.“

Court: First-tier Tribunal (and Upper Tribunal appeal)

Background:
Ms. Leibel was one of the 5 tenants in a property managed by Mr. Baird, which operated as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). Under the Housing Act 2004, HMOs housing five or more tenants must be licensed by the local council.

Mr. Baird had no HMO licence at the time.

Ms. Leibel applied to the Tribunal for a Rent Repayment Order (RRO), seeking to recover £5,382 in rent she had paid.

Legal Issue:
Was the property being operated as an unlicensed HMO, entitling the tenant to a Rent Repayment Order? Yes, the Owner even declared the false stating that only 4 people were living in the property

Decision:
The Tribunal ruled in favour of Ms. Leibel. They confirmed that the property had five occupants and therefore required a licence. Mr. Baird was ordered to repay £5,382.

Key Reasoning:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of licensing to protect tenants’ safety and rights. A landlord cannot escape liability by miscounting or misrepresenting the number of occupants.

Implications:

Landlords must ensure HMOs are correctly licensed.Tenants can recover rent where a landlord operates an unlicensed HMO.RROs serve as a strong enforcement tool for tenant protection.

Links:

Leibel v Baird CHI/29UC/HMF/2020/0035

Apply for a Rent Repayment Order (RRO1)

Help With Fees

The Toolbox: 9 Ways to Fight Back Without Moving to Mars