15 Ripley Road, West Beckton, London E16 3EA: LON/00BB/HMA/2015/0002 LON/00BB/HMA/2015/0002

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00BB/HMA/2015/0002

Between

London Borough of NewhamApplicant

Douglas OppongRespondent

Before

Mr C Gowman BSc MCIEH

11 June 2015

10 Alfred Place

London

Date 10 August 2015

Property: 3EA

Type of application: Application for a Rent Repayment Order Judge Dickie

DECISION

The tribunal makes a Rent Repayment Order against the Respondent in the sum of £11,152.57. Preliminary I. The tribunal issued this decision in draft form on 4 July 2015, to be served on the Applicant at his last provided address (at 28 Leman Street, London E1 8ER) and the tribunal notified the parties it was postponing its final decision in the form of that draft until Monday 27 July 2015. II. By an email received by the tribunal from the Respondent Mr Oppong on 28 July 2015 he enclosed a letter to the tribunal dated 22 July 2015 to which he said he had received no reply. However, this letter was not received by the tribunal and no proof of posting has been produced. Notably, the address given by Mr Oppong on this letter is 44 Norfolk Place, Chafford Hundred, Grays, Essex, RM16 6DE, which is the address to which the tribunal has sent all correspondence to the Respondent in this case. III. Mr Oppong explained in this letter that he had just returned from 2 months abroad to discover that the hearing had taken place in his absence, having left the country in an emergency when his guardian suffered a heart attack. He was away from 12 May to the middle of July and produces evidence of his return flight. He asks for more time to make submissions before the tribunal makes its decision. III. The tribunal has considered whether in the circumstances it should postpone issue of its decision and issue directions for further representations or for a further hearing. However, the tribunal takes into account the fact that written notification of this application was sent to Mr Oppong at his 44 Norfolk Place address on 13 March 2015, and that directions were issued to the parties in this application on 20 April 2015. Those directions required Mr Oppong to send his evidence to the tribunal and to the Applicant by 11 May 2015, which was prior to the date of his departure, and notified him of the date and time of the hearing. The tribunal is therefore satisfied that Mr Oppong did have notice of the hearing and had a fair opportunity to put his case or to seek a postponement of the hearing before he took place, which he failed to do. IV. Tribunal resources must be used proportionately and it sees no reason, in spite of the late correspondence received from Mr Oppong, which requires it to seek further submissions and /or list a further hearing. Accordingly (but for a typographical error in paragraph 3 of the draft decision now corrected) the tribunal issues its final decision below in the form of the draft previously circulated to the parties. The application

[1]The Applicant local authority seeks a rent repayment order (RRO) pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Housing Act 2004 (“the Act”). The Respondent is the long leaseholder of the subject property at 15 Ripley Road, West Beckton, London E16 3EA (“the Property”), and has been since July 2005.

[2]The Applicant was represented by Mr Robert Brown of counsel. The Respondent was not represented at the hearing and did not appear. He had not acknowledged the proceedings to the tribunal at all. On enquiry the tribunal was advised verbally at the hearing that the Respondent had contacted the Applicant by telephone after issue of the application. Property in an area of selective licensing

[3]The tribunal is satisfied that the Property was required to be licensed under Part 3 of the Act. Evidence was produced that from 1 January 2013 the Applicant designated the area of Newham, within which the Property is situated, as being an area for Selective and Additional Licensing. The designation applies to all privately rented properties within the area, subject to a number of statutory exceptions which are not applicable in the present case. Evidence was before the tribunal that the authority had fulfilled the notification requirements required by Section 83 of the Act upon making such a designation. The tribunal is satisfied that the Property was in an area of selective licensing. Property occupied under a tenancy

[4]On 19 April 2013 the Respondent granted to Mama Jaiteh an assured shorthold tenancy of the Property at a monthly rent of £950. A copy of the tenancy agreement was produced in evidence, the terms of which make the tenant responsible to pay for utilities, water charges and Council Tax.

[5]The tenancy agreement is with the Respondent as grantor, and apparently signed by him as landlord. The agreement records that “Angel Property Management is a division of Angel Finance Group Ltd”, and is also marked with the header of Angel Property Finance. The tribunal assumes that one or other of these named entities has acted as the landlord's property agent.

[6]The Applicant produced evidence to the tribunal in the form of a Companies House record created on 4 April 2014 that the Respondent is the sole director of Angel Finance Group (UK) Ltd. The tribunal notes the similarity between these company names, and that Mr Oppong is recorded as a director of that company, with his address given as 80-86 Old Street, London, EC1V 9AZ (the same as the address for Angel Finance Group (UK) Ltd.).

[7]However, the tribunal does not consider the existence or otherwise of an agent for this letting in one of these names as legally relevant to its consideration (other than as to the question of any payment for agency services). Respondent convicted of an offence of failure to licence

[8]The Applicant produced evidence of the Respondent having been convicted on 11 June 2014, in his absence, of an offence under s.95(1) of the Act, in that he failed to obtain a licence being a person who had control of or was managing the Property being residential accommodation which was required to be licensed under Part 3 of the Act, namely it was rented property and not so licensed. He was fined £1500, and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £120 and costs of £760.

[9]The Respondent is understood to own a number of investment properties. The Applicant produced evidence that the Respondent has previously been convicted of the same offence in respect of neighbouring property at 13 Ripley Road, after having entered a guilty plea on 26 September 2013. He was fined £50 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £50 and costs of £500. Notice of Intended Proceedings

[10]The tribunal was produced with satisfactory evidence of service by the Applicant on the Respondent of a notice of intended proceedings under section 96(7) of the Act. The tribunal finds that the contents of the Notice complied with the statutory requirements set out in that subsection. The date of that notice was 26 August 2014 and it was served by Magdalena Srokowska, Environmental Health Officer in Newham Council's Property Licensing Enforcement Team.

[11]The notice was served on the Respondent at 44 Norfolk Place, Chafford Hundred, Grays, RM16 6DE, the address which was recorded for him on the certificate of conviction dated 11 June 2014. This was the address said by the Applicant to have been provided for the Respondent to its housing benefit department and to which the payment notifications were sent, and on a Notice Requiring Possession served on the tenant dated 24 June 2014. The Notice was also served on the Respondent at the address for him on the Companies House record for Angel Finance Group (UK) Limited (as well as on that company at that registered address).

[12]No representations were received by the Respondent within the period ending 30 September 2014 specified in the notice (which was more than the minimum statutory requirement of 28 days). No licence in existence

[13]No evidence has been produced by the Respondent as to the existence of a licence, and the Applicant produced sufficient evidence in the form of a witness statement from Margarita Srokowska that there was no licence and no application had been received at any relevant time. However, she did confirm that an incomplete application for a licence had been made by the Respondent in respect of the Property. She said at the hearing that this had been in April 2015 and that further details had been requested from him and were awaited. The Applicant on 15 June filed a copy of a licence application which has been dated 18 September 2014 by the Respondent. The date of receipt by the local authority is not recorded. The Respondent's address is recorded on it as 28 Leman Street, London E1 8ER. This decision will be served also on the Respondent at that address. Housing benefit paid for a period during which an offence was committed, the same or less than the rent

[14]The next question for the consideration of the tribunal is whether housing benefit has been paid during the period of 12 months prior to the date of the Notice of Intended Proceedings. Mr P Gallagher, Senior Council Tax and Benefit Officer of the London Borough of Newham, produced evidence in the form of a schedule from the Applicant that housing benefit was paid between 27 August 2013 and 24 August 2014 to the tenant Mama Jaiteh for her occupation of the Property. The housing benefit paid to her for this period totalled £11,152.57 and this was the sum in respect of which the application for a RRO was made.

[15]By virtue of Section 96(6)(b) the housing benefit in respect of which a RRO can be made is that which has been paid to any person. It is therefore not relevant that the Respondent did not receive it directly from the local authority.

[16]A spreadsheet was attached to Mr Gallagher's witness statement showing all individual weekly payments of Housing Benefit which comprised the total final figure, and the tribunal accepts this evidence and that the total housing benefit of £11.152.57 was paid in respect of a period of no more than 12 months from the date of the notice and that an offence was being committed throughout this period. The amount paid to the Respondent in respect of periodical payments (in this case rent) has been the same or more than the housing benefit paid. Conclusion

[17]Accordingly, the tribunal is satisfied as to all of the matters in Section 97(2) of the Act, and that it therefore must make a RRO requiring the appropriate person to pay the Applicant an amount equal to the total housing benefit paid, subject to certain statutory exceptions. With regard to subsection 97(3), there is no evidence that the Respondent did not receive all of the housing benefit in question by way of rent, and it is clear that the housing benefit paid did not exceed the rent paid to him. With regard to subsection (4), no exceptional circumstances were brought to the tribunal's attention. There is no evidence of any expenditure by the Respondent for utilities, mortgage, etc. In spite of the name of an agency being recorded on the tenancy agreement, there is no evidence that the Respondent made payment for any agency services.

[18]Accordingly, the tribunal makes an order under s.96(5) and s.97(2) in the sum claimed. Name: F. Dickie Date: 10 August 2015