{"id":238,"date":"2021-08-23T09:41:06","date_gmt":"2021-08-23T08:41:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/?p=238"},"modified":"2021-08-23T11:02:06","modified_gmt":"2021-08-23T10:02:06","slug":"july-rro-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/2021\/08\/23\/july-rro-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"July RRO Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In total, twenty Rent Repayment Order applications have gone to hearing at the London First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) (FtT) in July, six more than in June.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For the most part, tenants have enjoyed wins!<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

An especially offensive offence?<\/strong><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>Judge Carr has helpfully stated, NS\/LON\/00AG\/HMF\/2020\/0237<\/span><\/a>, that the tribunal takes into account the \u2018length of the failure to license\u2019 (\u00a757). So, if your landlord\u2019s licensing offence relates to a licensing scheme that has been in place for several years, this will be in your favour.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>As usual, offences from a professional landlord are especially egregious. But, as Judge Daley notes, this does not justify a corresponding leniency for landlords lacking experience \u00a740 of LON\/00AM\/HMF2020\/0207<\/span><\/a>.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We have one instance<\/span><\/a> of the RRO award having been reduced by 20% purely on the grounds that there was no \u2018deliberate flouting of the law\u2019 (point 46).<\/p>\n

This is in direct opposition to Mohamed & Lahrie v Waltham Forest<\/em> [2020], which tells us that licensing offences are a strict liability offence.<\/p>\n

Secondly, it is in direct opposition to most case-law, which normally views reliance on letting agents as an insufficient excuse. Indeed, the defences throughout July show landlords are always keen to foist the blame onto letting agents, except that, other than in this strange case, those efforts were unrewarded.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Utility bills? <\/strong><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In July, there have been two cases where utilities have been deducted from a 100% award.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Yet we\u2019ve also had Judge Walker\u2019s judgment: inclusive bills are not offered \u2018out of some altruistic motives but to ensure that the property is attractive in the market, so that they can find tenants prepared to pay the amount asked in rent. Therefore, there is no basis, either in law or in practice, for disregarding part of the rent to reflect the costs of such services or inclusive bills.\u2019<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

What\u2019s the scope of poor conduct? <\/strong><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For tenants hoping to hold the landlord responsible for harassment from a co-tenant, we\u2019ve got two differing responses in July.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>Judge Percival upholds that resolving anti-social behaviour between tenants is not the landlord\u2019s responsibility.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>Judge Daley views the same as the landlord\u2019s \u2018duties\u2019, citing the landlord\u2019s failure to investigate harassment allegations against another tenant as poor conduct (point 38).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For tenants who feel their landlord has demonstrated similar negligence on this matter, Judge Daley\u2019s ruling will be of assistance.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Poor conduct or harassment? <\/strong><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Harassment, as it pertains to RRO offences, is defined in notoriously tricky terms \u2013 not so much by action as intent (an intent to remove the tenant or prevent them from exercising their rights).<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

So, for example, if the landlord \u2018persistently withdraws services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises\u2019 (3Ab), such as electricity or water, this may be harassment.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

One applicant, however, has posited that the continued disrepair in the property is grounds for a harassment allegation, arguing that mismanagement is itself a withdrawn \u2018service\u2019 (point 26).<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Although Judge Percival did not uphold the accusation, his reasoning is by no means discouraging: \u2018we do not exclude the possibility that management services could be covered by the term [\u2018service\u2019]\u2019.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Given this statement, there is the chance that persistent disrepair could, in time, be viewed as harassment.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018Good conduct\u2019?<\/strong><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In LON\/00AM\/HMF\/2020\/0236<\/span><\/a> below, Judge Tagliavini considered that the landlord had used a managing agent and that the latter had carried out maintenance in a timely manner. This was disputed by the Applicants. Nonetheless a 35% reduction in the RRO was made by this Tribunal panel on that basis. This decision is being appealed by the Applicants and Flat Justice is acting in a pro-bono advisory role so we cannot comment further here.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Guardians<\/strong><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Guardianship RRO cases, such as LON\/00AG\/HMF\/2021\/0042<\/span><\/a> below, are quite rare at the FtT: surprising considering that there are so many guardianship companies around, especially in London.Of course, a series of convictions might result in a banning order on a guardianship company which would be devastating to their business. The company involved here, Global 100 Ltd., doesn\u2019t seem to have been too concerned about this and trotted out all the usual non-arguments in defence:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>Not a HMO as the Applicants were \u2018guardians\u2019 and their occupation therefore did not constitute the only use of the property (s254(2)(d) The Housing Act 2004 (HA)). This was roundly dismissed by Judge Brandler, resonating with a number of other judgments involving guardians.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>Licence fees are not \u2018rent\u2019 for s40 of The Housing and Planning Act 2016 (HaPA). The Tribunal found this was not so, supported by s56 HaPA & s262 HA.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>S263 HA only applied to being in receipt of \u2018rent\u2019 not licence fees: this argument disintegrated with the conclusion that rent includes licence fees. Also, R argued, a sub-licensee cannot be a manager of the property: again dismissed by the Tribunal.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Strangely, R sought support from another Flat Justice case, 49 Russell Hill Road, Croydon, CR8 2XB (LON\/00AH\/HMK\/2020\/0021), despite the fact that the judgment there had found that a HMO had been created by Camelot, the now defunct guardianship company, who was a licensee of the council, that a licensor (Camelot, vis-\u00e0-vis their guardians) could be the Respondent to a RRO application and that Camelot should have applied for a HMO licence. Just as well R didn\u2019t mention another of our Guardianship cases, discussed in our blog here<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For any other guardians bringing a RRO application: don\u2019t forget to mention that these guardianship companies are completely ignoring their own legal advice in mounting such defences. Ad-Hoc www.adhocproperty.co.uk<\/span><\/a>; DEX www.dexpropertymanagement.co.uk<\/span><\/a>; Dot Dot Dot www.dotdotdotproperty.com<\/span><\/a>; Guardians of London www.guardiansoflondon.com<\/span><\/a>; Live-in Guardians www.liveinguardians.com<\/span><\/a>; Lowe Guardians www.loweguardians.com<\/span><\/a>; VPS Guardians www.vps-guardians.co.uk<\/span><\/a> have commissioned legal advice by Giles Peaker, Andrew Arden, & Andrew Dymond, all eminent practitioners in this field. In their paper, The law on property guardianship<\/em><\/span><\/a>: <\/em><\/a>A white paper setting out the health, safety and legal status of security through occupation<\/em><\/span><\/a> (2017), they advised:<\/p>\n

\u201cMost guardian HMO properties will be HMOs under the standard test\u201d<\/span>…and continued by advising that most exemptions to licensing of HMOs would not apply to guardianships.<\/p>\n

Zeros at 12 o\u2019clock<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some RRO cases unfortunately ended in no award:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>LON\/00AM\/HMF\/2021\/0040<\/span><\/a> was out of time as the tenant had swapped with another tenant on January 31 2020 but did not make his application until 5th February 2021. Crucially, he gave evidence that any rent he had paid in February had been repaid to him by the new tenant so that it was clear he had abandoned the property from 1st February 2020. You must make your RRO application within 12 months of the offence.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>NS\/LON\/OOBG\/HMF\/2020\/0237<\/span><\/a> is another embarrassment for Tower Hamlets who represented the Applicant and follows on from the severe admonishment received in D\u2019Costa v D\u2019Andrea & Ors (2021) UKUT 144 (LC)…and which FtT was quick to remind them of. Essentially there were 2 problems: R most likely had a reasonable excuse in that the HMO had been created without R consent; & no real evidence was produced by Tower Hamlets to support the As\u2019 case.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u25cf<\/span>LON\/OOAU\/HMF\/2020\/0245<\/span><\/a> was an unusual case involving the tenancy of an \u2018Almshouse\u2019 at Preachers\u2019 Court linked to a hospice for retired monks. The tenant was clearly trying to stretch the RRO legislation to fit their situation but the Tribunal wouldn\u2019t wear it: the fire escape through to the hospice, where there were shared facilities, did not create a HMO for the Applicant who enjoyed self-contained accommodation. Oh Brother!<\/div>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Case number & URL hyperlink<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Date of decision<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Respondent<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Applicant Represented?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Respondent Represented? <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Offence(s)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Rent paid by tenants in period of offence<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Award<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

%-age of rent<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00BJ\/HMF\/2021\/0047 & 0050<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

30th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Mr A Harris (fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a314,583<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a315,025.10 including UC payments. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a312,965.90<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

89% (100% after deduction of utilities)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AM\/HMF\/2021\/0031<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

26th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge Robert Latham<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Mesne landlord<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

(Leaseholders of the flat. Purchased the leasehold through a Ltd. company, which they own. So the Ltd. company is listed as the Respondent and is mesne landlord). <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a35,085.72<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a35,085.72<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

100%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AQ\/HMF\/2021\/0046<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

26th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge Professor Robert Abbey<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a34069.33<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a34069.33<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

100%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00BG\/HMF\/2021\/0023<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

23rd July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge Nicol<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Limited Company landlord director<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

(Company owns the property. But the Respondent is the director of the company and is listed on the tenancy agreement). <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a354,240<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a347,256<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

87%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AM\/HMF2020\/0207<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

22nd July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge Daley<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Harassment<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Illegal eviction (rejected)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a34,200<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a34,200<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

100%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AM\/HMF\/2020\/0236 <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

21st July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge Tagliavini<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a328.339.92<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a318.420.96<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

65%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AM\/HMF\/2021\/0040<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

21st July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge Tagliavini<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a34,815.30<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a30<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

0% (out of time) <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

NS\/LON\/OOBG\/HMF\/2020\/0237<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

19th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge Mullin<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Superior landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a314,609<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a30<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

0% (lack of proof)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00BC\/HMF\/2020\/0035<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

19th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge T Cowen<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Failure to comply with an improvement notice<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Failure to comply with a prohibition order (abandoned)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a312,204.84<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a312,204.84<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

100%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AY\/HMG\/2020\/0009<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

15th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge P Korn<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Superior landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a37,279.70<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a33,639.85<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

50%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/OOAU\/HMF\/2020\/0245<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

13th July 2021 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge Jim Shepherd<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property (rejected)<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Harassment (rejected)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a314,265<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a30<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

0% (not an HMO)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00BJ\/HMK\/2020\/0025<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

13th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge S.J. Walker <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a341,000<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a341,000<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

100%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AH\/HMF\/2020\/0258<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

12th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge N Haria<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a33,574.19<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a31832.25<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

51% (75% after the deduction of utilities) <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

NS\/LON\/00AG\/HMF\/2020\/0237<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

12th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge H Carr<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a328,080<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a328,080<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

100%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AP\/HMF\/2021\/0026<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

12th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge H Carr<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a318,000<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a314,400<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

80% <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AG\/HMF\/2020\/0230<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

10th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Tribunal Judge S.J. Walker<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a311,268<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a311,268<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

100%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AZ\/HMG\/2020\/0020<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

7th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge Jim Shepherd<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Harassment (abandoned)<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a33617.01<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a33617.01<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

100%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AG\/HMF\/2021\/0042<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

6th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge D Brandler<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Mesne landlord <\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

(Freehold owner is Euston One Ltd.. They handed possession of the building to Global Guardians Management Ltd.. The building is then managed by G100, which, according to the agreement between GGM and G100, can obtain a license and thus is listed as Respondent). <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a39142.41 in total<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a36,251.85 once UC has been subtracted<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a36,251.85<\/span><\/p>\n

\n<\/th>\n

\n

100%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AE\/HMF\/2020\/0252<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

6th July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Judge Daley<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a311,712.75<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a311,712.75<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

100%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LON\/00AT\/HMF\/2019\/0066<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

2nd July 2021<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Tribunal Judge Prof Richard Percival <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Direct landlord<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

(Respondent is a private limited company, who <\/span>own<\/span> the freehold of the property. The director and sole shareholder of the company was originally listed as the Respondent. Tribunal summary does not clarify who was listed on the tenancy agreement). <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

No<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Yes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Unlicensed property (rejected)<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Violence for the purpose of securing entry to premises (rejected) <\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Failure to comply with an improvement notice (rejected)<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Unlawful eviction\/harassment (rejected)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

\u00a30<\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

0% (out of time) <\/span><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

. In total, twenty Rent Repayment Order applications have gone to hearing at the London First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) (FtT) in July, six more than in June. ….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=238"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":240,"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238\/revisions\/240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}