Ieuan Sanders, Trainee Solicitor in the Social Impact Team considers a recent case in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
Mensah and Others v Sabag LON/00AP/HMB/2025/0015
I recently advocated in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a group of tenants pursuing a rent repayment order against their former landlord. I was up against a solicitor advocate with 20 years of experience in housing law so was delighted that we were able to achieve an award of £14,400 and establish that all three offences had been made out.
The Tribunal described the matter as ‘a difficult case’, and it raised several important issues around joint enterprise, violence for securing entry, and evidential credibility.
The Offences
The offences we sought to prove were:
1. Illegal eviction under s1 (2) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977;
2. Violence for Securing Entry under s 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977; and
3. And Harassment under s1 (3) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
The Evidence and Proving a Joint Enterprise
Although we had video footage of the landlord’s father using violence and making threats, and WhatsApp evidence of harassment from the landlord herself, we lacked direct evidence that the landlord had instructed her father to threaten or assault the tenants.
The opposing representative relied on R v Q, arguing that liability could only arise from criminal joint enterprise, not tortious principles. The Tribunal ultimately agreed with the legal framework but accepted our submissions that a joint enterprise existed on the facts.
The landlord was therefore held liable for the father using violence to obtain entry to the property, which was also found to be an attempted illegal eviction. This is interesting for two reasons. It shows the type of evidence required to satisfy the Tribunal of a joint enterprise, and also that the Tribunal will find the offence of illegal eviction where there was an attempt only.
The evidence that satisfied the Tribunal of a joint enterprise was:
• The landlord had arranged for her father to attend the property to install alternative tenants (a point helpfully made in a witness statement contained in the landlord’s bundle); and
• that she was aware the tenants had nowhere to go and were not planning on leaving that day as they had informed the landlord as much.
Importantly, the Tribunal did not need to find that the landlord explicitly instructed her father to be violent. Instead, it was enough that she knew he was attending to evict the tenants without a court order, and that violence occurred in the course of that unlawful purpose. The Tribunal stated that they found the landlord had acted in ‘cynical disregard for the rights of the tenants.’
Illegal Eviction: Attempt vs. Completion
A particularly interesting aspect of the decision is that the Tribunal was willing to find illegal eviction even though the eviction was only attempted, not completed. The violence used to gain entry constituted both the s6 offence and the attempt at illegal eviction.
This demonstrates a willingness by the Tribunal to treat attempted unlawful eviction as seriously as a completed one.
Credibility and Unused Evidence
Another interesting point in this case was the Tribunal’s approach to evidence submitted by the landlord and then not relied on. The landlord in this case was unrepresented until shortly before the hearing. Throughout her defence the landlord had made various accusations, which the Tribunal considered to be false. The failure to rely on statements made in earlier submissions was a clear reason for undermining the credibility of the landlord, who was considered not a ‘satisfactory’ witness and the Tribunal stated that they would rely on our client’s testimony where there was any conflict.
The Award: High-Level Offences, Reduced by Timing
The final interesting point from this case was that although the Tribunal was satisfied that the three offences were at the highest level and did not award any mitigation to the landlord for finances, the award was only made at 50% because the events all occurred on one day prior to the tenants leaving.
Conclusion
Overall, this decision is a useful reminder of how the Tribunal approaches cases involving unlawful eviction where multiple family members are involved. What stood out here was the Tribunal’s willingness to find a joint enterprise without needing explicit evidence of an instruction to use violence, and to treat an attempted eviction as seriously as a completed one. The findings on credibility also underline the importance for participants of maintaining a consistent case from the outset; abandoning earlier statements will rarely play well. Although the award was reduced because everything happened on a single day, the case still shows that tenants can achieve a meaningful level of award even in fast moving and difficult circumstances.
