The Upper Tribunal dismissed a tenant's appeal against the striking out of his rent repayment application, holding that the First-tier Tribunal made no error of law and that the hearing was fair.
Key facts
- Who: Tenants whose rent is paid wholly or partly by universal credit and who are considering a rent repayment order; landlords facing such claims.
- From: 5 May 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Hakan Tuyunuklu v Mohammed Akmal [2026] UKUT 174 (LC)
In Hakan Tuyunuklu v Mohammed Akmal [2026] UKUT 174 (LC), decided on 5 May 2026, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke, considered an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The appeal was decided on written representations, and neither party had legal representation.
Background
In January 2025 the tenant applied for a rent repayment order against his landlord, alleging harassment and seeking rent for 1 January 2024 to 9 December 2024. An earlier application covering 10 April 2023 to 9 April 2024 had been refused in December 2024, so the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that the new application could cover only the period from 10 April 2024. The judge said there was no permission to appeal that decision and that it was undoubtedly correct.
At the hearing on 9 October 2025 the FTT asked the tenant to explain why he was entitled to a rent repayment order when he received universal credit. He accused the panel of bias and asked it to recuse itself. The hearing ended and the application was struck out.
The question
Could the application be struck out because of the tenant's universal credit, and was the hearing fair?
The law
Under section 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the amount a landlord may be required to repay for a period must not exceed the rent paid for that period, less any relevant award of universal credit paid in respect of rent under the tenancy. Where, and insofar as, rent has been paid by universal credit, only the local housing authority can apply for a rent repayment order.
The decision and reasons
The appeal failed and the FTT's decision stands.
The tenant had relied on Rakusen v Jepson [2023] UKSC 9. The judge said the case is not authority for the idea that a tenant whose rent has been paid by universal credit can nevertheless get it back through a rent repayment order. She wondered, from references to AI in the transcript, whether he had been misled by an AI hallucination.
She accepted that if only part of the rent is paid by universal credit, only that part cannot be recovered. The tenant said his housing element was £1,283.96 against a contractual rent of £1,732.50 a month. But that information was not in his written application, and nothing he said at the hearing conveyed it clearly. The transcript showed him arguing with the panel and accusing it of bias, and the judge held that the hearing was rightly brought to an end by his own conduct. The FTT made no error of law and he had a fair hearing.
The judge added that it would be helpful to hear legal argument on a tenant who pays the rest of the rent from universal credit not allocated to housing. Her immediate reaction was that only the housing element could not be recovered, but she did not decide the point.
What this means for tenants
- Section 44 reduces a rent repayment order by universal credit paid in respect of rent. Where only part of the rent is paid by universal credit, only that part is affected.
- In this case the FTT was not told in the application, or clearly at the hearing, that only part of the rent was paid by universal credit, and the Upper Tribunal found no error of law as a result.
- Rakusen v Jepson was held not to decide that rent paid by universal credit can be recovered through a rent repayment order.
- Either party may appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law, with permission. An application for permission must be received by the Tribunal within 1 month after the decision is sent to the parties. If an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent, the 1 month runs from the date the Tribunal's costs decision is sent.
Sources
- Hakan Tuyunuklu v Mohammed Akmal [2026] UKUT 174 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 5 May 2026