J MurrayJ Fraser1. Beth Hitchen 2. Tamara Oakley Holton 3. Codie Semenytsh 4. Daniel Bentham 5. Isabella Benton 6. Leila Tillet 7. Ben Branton Ms. Tamara Oakley Holton for the Applicant1. Frances Mister 2. Zubeir Mister Mr. Zubeir Mister for the RespondentDate 9 March 2026Property: 69 Scotforth Road, Lancaster, LA1 4SDType of application: Housing and Planning Act 2016 – Section 41(1)
DECISION
[25]The Tribunal finds as a matter of fact that the Property was operated as House in Multiple Occupation, without a licence, from the 14th September 2023, until the 7th May 2024.[26]The question for the Tribunal to determine is whether either or both of the Respondents were the Landlord in control of the Property at the relevant period.[27]The tenancy agreement states in the preamable that "Landlord" shall include the Landlord's successors in title and assigns. This is the person who would be entitled to possession of the Property if the Tenant was not in possession and could be the current Landlord or someone purchasing or inheriting the property. This was clearly inaccurate, as the Lettings Agent could not be entitled to possession of the Property. LSL were at no time the appropriate person to be the subject matter of this action; but there was an element of mystery to the Respondent's dealings throughout.[28]The Second Respondent indicated that LSL should have applied for the licence. But they had not done so, and their contract with him did not suggest they were ever responsible for doing so. They had not done so when the application was made in 2024.[29]Control is defined in section 263 of the Housing Act 2004.[30]Section 263(1) states that a “person having control”, in relation to premises, means (unless the context otherwise requires) the person who receives the rack-rent of the premises (whether on his own account or as agent or trustee of another person), or who would so receive it if the premises were let at a rack-rent.[31]Section 263(3) states that a “person managing” means, in relation to premises, the person who, being an owner or lessee of the premises— (a)receives (whether directly or through an agent or trustee) rents or other payments from— (i)in the case of a house in multiple occupation, persons who are in occupation as tenants or licensees of parts of the premises; and (ii)in the case of a house to which Part 3 applies (see section 79(2)), persons who are in occupation as tenants or licensees of parts of the premises, or of the whole of the premises; … and includes, where those rents or other payments are received through another person as agent or trustee, that other person.[32]The Property was owned in the sole name of the First Respondent. There was no evidence before the Tribunal of the trust agreement that was said to give beneficial ownship to 69 Scotforth Road Limited, a company which had been compulsorily struck off on 10th December 2024. Apparently if reinstated, the registered title would be transferred to that company. There was no explanation as to why this had not been done previously given the First Respondent had owned the Property since 2019.[33]The Second Respondent was the sole director of ZCG Asset Management Limited t/a Student Living Company (now in liquidation) who had instructed the Lettings Agent LSL to let the Property. LSL in their correspondence to the Tribunal dated 17th October 2025 stated: The landlord and licence holder are: Zubeir Mister / Boom Management Ltd, 108 St Leonards Gate, Lancaster LA1 1NN.[34]The Second Respondent is the sole director of Boom Management Ltd which is now said to be in control of the Property. No documentation supported how the control had gone from the First Respondent, to 69 Scotforth Road Limited (struck off) to Boom Management Limited.[35]The Second Respondent had completed an application for an HMO Licence. He told the Tribunal that he made his application on behalf of Boom Management Limited; he also told the Tribunal that at the time he applied for the licence, that ZCG Asset Management Limited t/a Student Living Company were still responsible for the property; he said that those arrangements continued until the end of the academic year in accordance with the LSL management agreement.[36]He told the Tribunal that he was applying for the licence as the Director of Boom Management Limited, and not in his personal capacity. On the application form he stated that Boom (Management) Limited were the person having control of the HMO; even though they were not currently the manager at that time.[37]In the section naming the proposed licence holder, he wrote Boom Management Limited, his name Mr. Zubeir Mister, and his date of birth. stated the owner of the Property was 69 Scotforth Road Ltd (despite the Land Registry entries showing the First Respondent as the owner). He stated the proposed manager was Mr. Adam Moosa of LSL.[38]At 4.2 of the application form, he said that the proposed licence holder had contravened planning laws and faced proceedings by a Council. The details he gave for this planning law breach was his own name, Zubeir Mister for a property at 75 Church Street Lancaster, where he had been served with an Enforcement Notice.[39]It was clear to the Tribunal that he had completed the application for himself as licence holder; he did not suggest that Boom Management Limited had contravened planning laws. If, as the Second Respondent suggsted, any obligation to apply for, hold or comply with an HMO licence rested with ZCG Asset Management Limited t/a Student Living Company, why did he undertake this task himself? The suggestion in their submissions that the Respondents were not responsible for applying for the licence was not borne out by what happened; the Second Respondent applied for the HMO Licence, in his own name, alongside the name of another company Boom Management Limited, which was in his sole control.[40]The Licence Holder who was granted a licence on the 7th May 2025 is stated to be Zubeir Mister, Boom Management Limited.[41]The Respondents' business dealings are opaque. The property is in the name of the First Respondent, but the Tribunal was told that management was the responsibility of a shell company, now defunct, by an undocumented arrangement. Whether by accident or design, neither their individual names, nor their company name, appeared on the tenancy agreement where their agent stated that he himself, (not even his company LSL) was the Landlord.[42]The Respondents assert that tenancy agreements were issued on behalf of, and rent was payable to, and received by ZCG Asset Management Limited t/a Student Living Company. This was not borne out by the evidence. The Applicants paid their rent directly to an agent of the Lettings Agent. The Applicants had never heard of ZCG Asset Management Limited t/a Student Living Company, and LSL never suggested to the Tribunal or to the tenants that ZCG Asset Management Limited (in liquidation) or 69 Scotforth Road Limited (dissolved via compulsory strike off) had anything to do with the Property or their tenancy.[43]There was no logical explanation put forward as to why Boom Management Limited would have the right to receive rents of £45,000 a year plus, for no apparent capital outlay.[44]But the Tribunal is mindful of the case of Rakusen v Jepsen and others [2023] UKSC9 whereby the Supreme Court made clear that a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) might only be made against the immediate landlord of the tenants, overturning the decision of the Upper Tribunal in Goldsbrough v CA Property Management Ltd [2019] UKUT 311 (LC), [2020] HLR 18 in which Judge Elizabeth Cooke had decided that an RRO could be made against a superior landlord as well as the immediate landlord[45]The offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The only documentation that we have seen is that rent was payable to an agent of LSL, and under a contract between LSL and ZCG Asset Management Limited t/a Student Living Company, rents were payable to the latter.[46]In those circumstances, on these facts, and applying the (current) law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakusen, we have to dismiss this appeal. We note that the current law is to be changed by section 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 by section 103 of the Renters Rights Act 2025, designed to close down the loopholes that currently enable evasion of penalties by the use of the corporate veil. That change to the law is not yet in force. Tribual Judge John Murray 9 March 2026