Anna Jamroz v Mohammed Javid Tariq Ali

This is an appeal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal that it did not have jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order because the application to the FTT was made out of time. The appeal is brought with permission from the FTT. It has been decided under the Tribunal’s written representations procedure; the appellant has been represented by Mr Jamie McGowan of Justice for Tenants, and the landlord Mr Mohammed Ali has chosen not to take part in the appeal.

This decision is necessarily brief since the point on which permission to appeal was granted has now been decided, in the appellant’s favour, by the Tribunal in a decision published after the date of the FTT’s decision.

The Housing and Planning Act 2016 makes provision for the First-tier Tribunal to make a rent repayment order on the applicant of a tenant if it is satisfied, to the criminal standard of proof, that a landlord has committed one of the housing offences listed in section 40. Among them are the offences of managing or being in control of a house required to be licensed under the Housing Act 2004 when it is not so licensed; licensing is required for some houses in multiple occupation, and also for rented property in an area designated by the local housing authority as an area of selective licensing under section 80 of the 2004 Act. The relevant offence is set out in section 95 of the 2004 Act.

Section 41(2) of the 2016 Act provides:

“A tenant may apply for a rent repayment order only if —

(a)

the offence relates to housing that, at the time of the offence, was let to the tenant, and

(b)

the offence was committed in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application is made.”

In Moh v Rimal Properties Ltd [2024] UKUT 324 (LC) the Tribunal held that the "12 months ending with the day on which the application is made" is a period which ends with, and includes the whole of, the day on which the application for a rent repayment order is made to the FTT; the “corresponding date rule” does not apply. So if the last day on which the offence was committed was 1 January 2020 the application must be made before the end of 31 December 2020.

In Jevan v Athansiadi [2024] UKUT 358 the Tribunal decided that an application is made to the FTT on the day on which it is filed on-line by being sent in an email, even though (in accordance with the FTT’s requirements) the fee was paid later; the Tribunal followed a dictum of Eveleigh LJ in Aly v Aly [1984] 1 WLR 936 that making an application is a unilateral act which does not depend on steps taken by someone else such as the FTT sending details of how to pay the fee. Crucially for this appeal, after the date of the FTT’s decision, in June 2025 the Tribunal in Gorgievski v Griffiths and others [2025] UKUT161 (LC) held that an application is made on the date on which it is sent to the FTT by email, even if it is sent outside office hours.

The appellant Ms Jamroz lived at 92A Hampton Road, London E7, from July 2006 to 10 April 2023; she was the tenant from 2015. Her landlord was Mr Mohammed Ali, who bought the property in 2004. The property is in the London Borough of Newham; until 28th February 2023 it was in an area designated as a selective licensing area, but the landlord did not have a licence. Accordingly, the last date on which the landlord could have committed the offence of managing the property without a selective licence was 28 February 2023, and for the FTT to have jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order in response to that offence the application had to be received by it by the end of 27th February 2024.

The appellant made an application to the FTT for a rent repayment order by email sent at 11:15 p.m. on 27 February 2024. The FTT held that it was out time and that it did not have jurisdiction.

As I said above that decision was made before the Tribunal made its decision in Gorgievski, which is binding on the FTT. That case makes the position clear and the outcome of the appeal inevitable: the application was made in time and the FTT did have jurisdiction.

Accordingly I have not needed to consider the further matters raised by the submissions filed by Mr McGowan on 15 April 2025, largely seeking to persuade the Tribunal that its decision in Moh v Rimal was incorrect. I have not understood why that is relevant to the ground of appeal for which permission was given, and the interesting arguments raised in Mr McGowan’s submissions will have to wait for another day. The appeal succeeds in any event.

Helpfully the FTT made further findings, in case it was wrong about jurisdiction, that the landlord had committed the relevant offence, and determined the amount of the rent repayment order that it would make in the event that it was wrong about jurisdiction. Those alternative findings now take effect and the landlord must repay to the appellant rent in the sum of £2,790, together with the FTT fees of £320, within 28 days of the date of this decision.