Trinity Housing Barrister Summary of Shah & Anor v McLaughlin & Ors [2024]

Trinity Social Housing Law barrister, Henry Percy-Raine has prepared the following summary of the recent Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision of Shah & Anor v McLaughlin & Ors (Housing – Rent Repayment Order – appeal against FTT’s findings of fact) [2024] UKUT 69 (LC).

This was an appeal against the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) ordering Mr Shah to repay rent of £3,500 to each of the six respondents. Mr Shah challenged the FTT's determination that he, and not his company, was the landlord of the property, its dismissal of his defence of reasonable excuse, and alternatively the quantum of the order.

The facts

19 Somerset Road is a five-bedroomed house which was purchased by TSMB Ltd in 2010. Mr Shah is the sole shareholder and director of the company. In 2020, the six respondents became tenants of 19 Somerset Road. Their tenancy was arranged through Empire Lettings. The respondent’s case was that an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) agreement named Mr Shah as the landlord, but it contained errors so a replacement agreement was signed by them and on behalf of the landlord but a copy was not provided.  Mr Shah claimed never to have seen or to have signed that AST agreement. Instead, he relied on an entirely different document; the main differences were that it identified TSMB Ltd as the landlord, and named only three tenants. The FTT heard oral evidence and it preferred the tenants’ version of events. Accordingly, it found Mr Shah was the relevant landlord for the rent repayment order.

The appeal

The grounds of appeal all essentially challenged the FTT’s findings of fact. The decision notes the difficulty established by the case law that an appellant faces when seeking to reverse findings of fact on appeal [4-9].

The first ground of appeal challenged the FTT’s decision that Mr Shah was the landlord as being plainly wrong. In short, this was unsuccessful, in circumstances where Mr Shah was not present when the tenants signed the tenancy documents and the tenants’ evidence was not contradicted by other direct evidence, it was understandable how the FTT preferred the tenant’s evidence.

The second ground of appeal related to Mr Shah’s defence that he was deceived by his own letting agent as to who was in the property. This ground was also unsuccessful. There was an absence of evidence to show that Mr Shah did not know exactly what was going on. Once it was found the six tenants had an agreement signed by Mr Shah or on his behalf, without evidence to disprove the natural assumption that the agent was acting in accordance with its instructions, the suggestion that Mr Shah was deceived was unsubstantiated [39].

The third ground related to the amount of the rent repayment order. It was held that the FTT applied the Tribunal’s guidance in Acheampong v Roman [2022] UKUT 239 (LC) and its determination that the offence was sufficiently serious to justify 70 per cent repayment was not inconsistent with the general level of awards which varied widely depending on the circumstances of each case [43].

Accordingly, the appeal was refused on all three of the grounds.