The illegal eviction involved the physical assault of one tenant and bailiffs entering the property on the instruction of the landlords without a court order.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) imposed a rent repayment order (RRO) on the landlords of 100% of the maximum in relation to one tenant and 90% of the maximum in relation to three other tenants. The landlords were also ordered to pay the £300 cost of the application to the FTT for the RRO. The RRO must be paid within 28 days of the order being made on 14th February.

At the hearing the landlords accepted that they had been managing or in control of an unlicensed HMO. In relation to the illegal eviction, evidence was accepted from one tenant that bailiffs had unlawfully entered his room, without his consent and at the instruction of the landlords and removed the door lock and "that the bailiffs only left the property after the tenants had contacted Shelter and [Barking] council and they had spoken to the bailiff".

A second tenant alleged that the landlords entered her room without permission, removed her possessions and assaulted her. This evidence was backed up by another tenant who provided photographs and a video of the incident. The FTT said that it did not find the landlords to be credible witnesses and although their grasp of English was poor they "should have known the licensing requirements ..... the information is readily available from local authorities, many of whom produce information in multiple languages. A simple google search would have revealed the true position of the licensing requirements and the Tribunal finds that the Respondents were careless as to the requirements at the very least."

The FTT went on to say that there was no evidence of behaviour (such as rent arrears or property damage) by the tenants that was relevant to the application and went on to say that if the issue had been only about licensing offences it would have set the RRO at 50% of the maximum. However, the seriousness of the offences had been "significantly" raised by the attempted unlawful eviction, lack of service of a proper repossession notice and the assault on one of the tenants and this was why the RRO was set at 90% for three of the applicant tenants and 100% for the remaining applicant.

Looking for up to the minute updates on all selective licensing and PRS news? Follows us on Facebook Twitter LinkedIn