Automated Summary
Key Facts
This case concerns a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) issued by the First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber against Mohammad Abdul Kalam (1st Respondent) for failing to obtain a required HMO license for Flat 2 Bantry House, Ernest Street, London E1 4QX. The Tribunal found that Kalam was the immediate landlord, despite his claims of having transferred management to Globe Residential, and that he had failed to comply with the additional HMO licensing requirements introduced by Tower Hamlets Council from 01/04/2019. The Tribunal ordered Kalam to pay £20,374 in RRO to the five applicant tenants in specified proportions, plus £300 for tribunal fees. The decision was made on 19th August 2021 following a remote hearing on 2nd August 2021.
Issues
- The tribunal found R1 in breach of HMO licensing requirement as he admitted not applying for a license, and the tribunal rejected his claim that Globe Residential was the immediate landlord.
- The tribunal determined Mohammad Abdul Kalam was the immediate landlord responsible for HMO licensing despite his claim of a sham agreement with Globe Residential, based on tenancy agreements naming him as landlord.
- The tribunal found the property was required to be licensed under Tower Hamlets Council's additional HMO scheme effective from 01/04/2019 for properties in St Dunstan's ward occupied by three or more persons.
- The tribunal calculated the rent repayment order by considering qualifying periods of occupation with at least three people, landlord and tenant conduct, and landlord's financial circumstances, awarding a total of £20,374.
Holdings
The tribunal determined that Mohammad Abdul Kalam (R1) was the immediate landlord of Flat 2 Bantry House, Ernest Street, London E1 4QX, as evidenced by the tenancy agreements naming him as 'The Landlord' and the holding deposit receipt stating 'landlord: Abdul Kalam'. The tribunal rejected R1's assertion that he had transferred control to Globe Residential via a lease agreement dated 12/09/2019, finding this agreement to be a sham. The tribunal also found that Globe Residential and Joes Property Limited (R2) were both letting agents instructed by R1. Crucially, the tribunal found that R1 was in breach of the HMO licensing requirements introduced in Tower Hamlets from 01/04/2019, as he admitted he had never applied for a license. The tribunal ordered R1 to pay a Rent Repayment Order of £20,374 to the applicants in specified proportions, plus £300 for tribunal fees, as the landlord's conduct (including using tactics to avoid responsibility, failing to obtain a license, and failing to return utilities and deposits) warranted the full award without reduction.
Remedies
The tribunal awarded a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) of £20,374 total, paid in specific proportions to each applicant, plus £300 in tribunal fees. The RRO was granted due to the landlord's breach of HMO licensing requirements.
Monetary Damages
20374.00
Legal Principles
- The tribunal applied the standard of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' when determining whether the landlord committed an offence under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which is the standard required for making a rent repayment order.
- The tribunal placed the burden of proof on the landlord to demonstrate that he was not liable for the offence, as required by the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
- The tribunal applied the 'substance over form' principle, rejecting R1's argument that a lease agreement with Globe Residential absolved him of responsibility as the immediate landlord. The tribunal found the lease agreement was a sham and that R1 was the actual landlord.
Precedent Name
Rakusen v Jepson and others
Cited Statute
- Housing and Planning Act 2016
- Housing Act 2004
Judge Name
- D Brandler
- S Wheeler
Passage Text
- The Tribunal found beyond reasonable doubt that R1 was the immediate landlord was in breach of his requirement to licence the property under the HMO licensing schemes managed by the Council. The requirement for additional licencing having been introduced Borough wide in Tower Hamlets from 01/04/2019. R1 admits he had not applied for a licence at any time.
- The 1st Respondent shall pay to the Applicants a Rent Repayment Order in the total sum of £20,374. This sum to be paid in the following proportions to the Applicants:
- The Tribunal were satisfied on the balance of probabilities that R1 was the immediate landlord, as evidenced by the tenancy agreements upon which his name appears as 'The Landlord', the 'first schedule' dated 01/02/2019 signed by 'Landlord(s)' agent signature Globe Residential', the holding deposit receipt dated 31/01/2020 which states 'landlord: Abdul Kalam'.