{"id":336,"date":"2024-09-03T16:41:53","date_gmt":"2024-09-03T15:41:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/?p=336"},"modified":"2024-09-03T16:41:54","modified_gmt":"2024-09-03T15:41:54","slug":"schrodingers-landlord","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/2024\/09\/03\/schrodingers-landlord\/","title":{"rendered":"Schr\u00f6dinger’s Landlord"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Or how a landlord can be a landlord but not be a landlord all at the same time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Kumar v Kolez & ORS [2024] UKUT 255 (LC)<\/a>, a house in Wandsworth had been let by the Owner, Mr Kumar, to a Rent-to-Rent (R2R) company Like Minded Living Ltd (LML). LML then let to sub-tenants Messrs Kolez et al.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice For Tenants (J4T) brought the case for the tenants at the FtT where they won RROs (60%) against the superior landlord, Mr Kumar and continued to represent them at the UT. The appellants were represented by Mr Tom Morris of Landmark Chambers \u2026who represented the landlord in Rakusen<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hoping to circumvent the Rakusen<\/em> ruling from the Supreme Court which found that only the direct landlord could be the Respondent to a RRO application, J4T adopted an interesting and imaginative approach:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LML\u2019s lease expired 30th September 2019 but the sub-tenancies all had terms that extended beyond that date so that under long-established principle (e.g. Milmo v Carreras<\/em> [1946] 1 KB 306<\/a>) the tenancy was effectively directly established between the higher landlord and the sub-tenants of the mesne (or intermediate) landlord whose lease was due to expire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end this argument came to nought as UT considered that LML\u2019s tenancy had extended to a periodic tenancy at the expiry of its term: see \u00a7s 36 & 37. No RRO could therefore be made against Mr Kumar. The (sub-) tenants argued that before the expiry of LML\u2019s lease there had been a tenancy directly between them & the owner, Mr Kumar, for which a RRO could be made. However the UT still found that the absence of any direct rent payments from the tenants to Mr Kumar meant that the latter could not be a Respondent to the RRO, following the Rakusen judgment in the Supreme Court.  J Martin Rodger KC quoted extensively from this judgment for justification, e.g: \u00a724 quoting \u00a728 of the SC judgment from Lord Briggs & Lord Burrows:
\u201cThis straightforward interpretation links the landlord with the tenancy that generates the relevant rent\u2026.It excludes a superior landlord because it is not the \u201clandlord under\u201d the tenancy which generates the rent.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That could have been the end of the matter but there were three further grounds of appeal which the Tribunal went on to consider to a greater or lesser extent:
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) Appellant was not a \u201cperson having control\u201d or a \u201cperson managing\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) \u201creasonable excuse\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4) Wrong rent used to calculate the award; LML conduct not relevant<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dealing with these in turn:
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) Appellant was not a \u201cperson having control\u201d or a \u201cperson managing\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both parties agreed that Mr Kumar was not a person managing, despite the FtT\u2019s finding, as he did not receive any rent from the occupants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the subject of \u201ccontrol\u201d, the appellant argued that there could only be one person in control, i.e. LML for them, so that Mr Kumar could not be a person in control, despite conceding that there could be more than one person in receipt of the rack rent, a crucial determinant. The main argument presented by the appellant was the use of the definite article in s263(1) The Housing Act 2004 (HA), indicating a singularity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end the decision on this ground was left hanging, no doubt to be revisited in another appeal\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) \u201creasonable excuse\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

UT found that the FtT had not considered carefully enough whether Mr Kumar had a reasonable excuse. Mr Kumar had specified in his contract with LML that there should be no more than 4 occupants. Had LML respected this limitation the property would not have been licensable. UT did not agree with FtT that Mr Kumar should have been more careful in ensuring there was no breach of this clause to qualify for a reasonable excuse and found instead that the excuse was available in these circumstances- unnecessary as it happens given the earlier finding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4) Wrong rent used to calculate the award; LML conduct not relevant<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tenants conceded that the award had been incorrectly calculated and should have been based on the rent received by Mr Kumar. Similarly, the tenants did not oppose the related conduct ground. Again the point was moot as the appeal succeeded and the UT found that no RRO should have been made.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Or how a landlord can be a landlord but not be a landlord all at the same time. In Kumar v Kolez & ORS [2024] UKUT 255 (LC), a house…<\/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\/336"}],"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=336"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/336\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":337,"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/336\/revisions\/337"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/getrentback.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}