August RRO Decisions

.

August began under the shadow of the momentous Rakusen v Jepsen (Rakusen) judgment made on the 29th of July, which stated tenants can only make claims against their immediate landlord.

.

In consequence, many hearings scheduled for August, including those brought by Flat Justice, did not see the light of day, as Applicants hastily withdrew doomed claims against superior landlords.

.

Nonetheless, many Applicants still managed to win big in August.

.

The spectre of Rakusen-Jepsen

.

Even in successful RRO1 applications in August, Rakusen loomed large.

.

In Adjety V Kenneth Lloyds Limited & Ali, Mr Adjety made a claim against both their immediate landlord and their superior landlord. This approach – which Flat Justice had often employed prior to ​Rakusen – did not survive the opening moments of the hearing. Shortly after the hearing began, the Tribunal adjourned to consider Rakusen. On returning, the Tribunal swiftly decided that a claim could only be made against the immediate landlord: Kenneth Lloyds Limited.

Nonetheless, Mr Adjety won 100% of his rent back from Kenneth Lloyds Limited. So long as Kenneth Lloyds Limited pays the award, Mr Adjety will have triumphed.

.

However, the worry is that in cases like these it might be cost effective for immediate landlords – who are limited companies – to liquidate and re-emerge in the form of phoenix companies.

.

Fingers crossed for you Mr Adjety!!

.

In other cases, Judges made sure to confirm whether a Respondent was an ‘immediate landlord’. What hallmarks of an ‘immediate landlord’ did the Tribunal look for?

.

In Dos Santos and Gandara V L Hub London, the Tribunal identified the fact that L Hub London: ‘is named as the landlord on the tenancy agreement’ and ‘that rent payments were made to the Respondent’.
in Zaric & ORS v J & G Home Share Limited & ORS the Tribunal contrasted the ‘First Respondent’ who was ‘the immediate landlord and the appropriate respondent’ with ‘the second and third Respondents’ who were ‘the freeholders’ and therefore a superior landlord.
Somewhat contrastingly, in Mohamud V 9 Connaught Road Limited and Chadwell Holdings Limited (1) Brian Thomas Estate Agents (2), Judge Abbey deemed that the first Respondents were appropriate Respondents on the basis that they ‘are the owners of the property as listed on its registered title’. The Tribunal further stated that ‘Thomas Estate Agents’ could not be a Respondent as they were merely a managing agent. The reason why the Tribunal decided that the owner of the property was the ‘immediate landlord’ rather than a ‘superior landlord’ is not addressed. Perhaps, the Tribunal is still willing to allow claims against the owners of a property where there is no appropriate candidate for a landlord further down the chain.
There was a particularly interesting discussion about who is the ‘immediate’ and ‘superior’ landlord in Rodriquez & ORS v Mohammad Abdul Kalam (1) Joes Property Limited (2). In that case, the first Respondent Mr Kalam tried to argue that he was a ‘superior landlord’ on the basis that he had signed a lease with ‘Globe Residential’ – who he claimed were a ‘rent-2-rent’ agency. Following Rakusen, one would have expected Mr Kalam’s argument that ‘Globe Residential’ were the ‘immediate landlord’ to be successful. However, the Tribunal found that there was sufficient evidence that Mr Kalam still remained the ‘immediate landlord’. The Tribunal pointed to the fact that:
The lease between Mr Kalam and Globe Residential was a ‘sham agreement’.
Globe Residential, as well as R2 (Joes Property Limited), were in fact managing agents of Mr Kalam.
Mr Kalam was named as the Applicants’ landlord on their AST agreement.

.

Arrears hurt Rent Repayment Orders:

.

In Mohamud V 9 Connaught Road Limited and Chadwell Holdings Limited (1) Brian Thomas Estate Agents (2), the Tribunal made a 5% deduction to the award based on the fact that the Applicant had rent arrears. The deduction was small as the arrears began outside the period applied for. However, the fact that the deduction was made, despite the arrears being outside the period applied for, is a further reminder that the Tribunal is not always strict in keeping its focus on the ‘relevant period’.

.

Similarly, there was a 15% reduction in Islam & Siwon V Madlani owing to tenant arrears. However, in Islam the arrears had occured during the period.

.

Deductions are a one way street?

.

In Reeves & Ors v Watson & Watson, the Tribunal made a 10% deduction for good landlord conduct despite also finding evidence of extremely poor landlord conduct:

1.The deposits were not protected
2.There was no hard-wired fire alarm
3.Failure to repair a window that “placed the applicants at some risk

All this despite the fact that the Respondent was judged by the Tribunal to have been a “long-standing professional landlord”, so should normally have been dealt with more harshly for failing to license. Essentially, the deduction was made because there was no “deliberate flouting of the law by the respondents”…

.

This is a somewhat concerning trend, in which the Tribunal reduces an award from 100% if there are ANY reasons to make deductions.

.

We have always argued that if a Tribunal sees reasons to make a deduction, this must be balanced against reasons not to make a deduction.

.

So if a landlord demonstrates equally good and bad conduct, the two would balance out, and there would be no deduction to an award.

.

However, it seems that often, if the Tribunal sees a reason to come down from 100%, no amount of bad landlord conduct will lead them to come back up.

.

Sham licences are bad conduct!

.

In Zaric & ORS v J & G Home Share Limited & ORS, the tribunal found ‘that the landlord used a licence agreement which in the opinion of the tribunal was not appropriate’.

This, as the Tribunal noted, had ‘consequences… It meant that the deposit was not protected when it should have been. It also meant that the applicants thought they had very limited security of tenure.’

.

.

Summary of all cases in August 2021:

.

.

.

Case number & URL hyperlink

Date of Decision

Judge

Respondent

​​ ​Applicant Represented?

Respondent represented?

Offence(s)

Rent paid by tenants in period of offence

Award

% of rent

LON/00BJ/HMF/2020/0235

02/08/2021

Judge R Abbey

Balazs Stalter

No

Did not attend

Unlicensed property

7020

7020

100%

LON/00BB/HMG/2021/0003

4/08/2021

Tribunal member Anthony Harris

L Hub London

No

Yes

Unlicensed property

15, 060

15, 060

100%

LON/00BE/HMF/2020/0184

05/08/2021

Judge Brandler

Bernard Properties LLP

No

Yes

Unlicensed property

16, 800

16, 800

100%

CHI/00MR/HMF/2021/0010

05/08/2021

Judge Cresswell

Mr Anderson & Ms Anderson

Yes

.

No

Unlicensed property

1189.40

1016.20

85%

LON/00AG/HMB/2021/0001

10/08/2021

Judge Dutton

Ms Jessica Slamon

No

Yes

Unlicensed property / Harassment/ Illegal Eviction

Unclear

0

0%

LON/00BG/HMF/2021/0032

11/08/2021

Judge Nicol

Mr Derek Burgess

Yes by Flat Justice

Yes (by father not counsel)

Unlicensed property

6,300

6,300

100%

LON/00AL/HMF/2021/0030

12/08/2021

Judge N Hawkes

(1) Kenneth Lloyds Limited (2) Mrs Aftaban Bibi Ali

No

Yes

Unlicensed property

6, 240

6, 240

100%

LON/00AN/HMF/2020/0255

13/08/2021

Judge Korn

Mr Dilip Madlani

Yes by Advice4Renters

No

Unlicensed property

8,100

6,579

81%

LON/00BG/HMF/2021/0075

19/08/2021

Judge Brandler

Mohammad Abdul Kalam (1) Joes Property Limited (2)

Yes

R(1) Yes

R(2) No

Unlicensed property

20374

20374

100%

LON/00BC/HMJ/2021/0001

23/08/2021

Judge Abbey

9 Connaught Road Limited and Chadwell Holdings Limited (1) Brian Thomas Estate Agents (2)

No

R(1) Yes, R(2) No.

Unlicensed property

8,520 (of which 7,284 was paid by the tenant, the rest was paid with UC)

6920.51

95% (of​​ rent paid by the Applicant themselves)

LON/00AL/HMF/2020/0218

23/08/2021

Judge Carr

Naressh Gopal

No

No

Unlicensed property

6000

5525

92.08%

LON/00BE/HMF/2021/0072

23/08/2021

Judge Carr

Mr. A. Watson and Ms. J. Watson.

Unclear if Applicant self represented

Yes

Unlicensed property

25300

22683.60

90%

LON/00BG/HMF/2021/0035

31/08/2021

Judge Dutton

Mr Christopher Seymour

No

No

Unlicensed property

4550

4550

100%

LON/00BG/HMG/2021/0011

31/08/2021

Judge Carr

J & G Home Share Limited (1) Abdul Hamid (2) Ataur Rahman (3)

Yes

No

Unlicensed property

£24,073.69

24,073.69

100%

.

.

.

.

.

.