First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) judgments from 2017

21 judgments from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in 2017.

James Michael Hepworth v (1) Jane Powell (2) Alan Roker (Adverse possession : Applications under Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002)[2018] UKFTT 0058 (PC) · 2017 · cited 1 time
Flats 5,9,6,7 & 10 Dolphin Court, 110 Central Parade, Herne Bay Kent CT6 5JPCHI/29UC/LBC2017/0021-3 · 2017
11 Richmond Road,London, N2 8JT: LON/00AC/HML/2017/0003LON/00AC/HML/2017/0003 · 2017
37A Park Mansions Vivian Avenue London NW4 3UU:LON/00AC/LSC/2016/0375LON/00AC/LSC/2016/0375 · 2017
244a -258a Church Lane Kingsbury NW9 8SILON/00AE/LAM/2017/0019 · 2017
That it had first been identified as a licensable HMO on 10 December 2012 and an application form sent to the manager Danish Zafar, for the landlord. The property had already at the time apparently been converted without planning consent from a ‘care home’ to an HMO. 22. Mr Cooper confirmed that a further application form had been sent on 8 January 2013 for the landlord’s completion and return and further reminders on 13 February 2013 and 12 March 2013 and finally on 23 April 2013 with a 7 day deadline to comply. On 30 April 2013 the landlord had sought a delay to comply with licensing until a pending planning application to convert the property into 5 self-contained flats had been expected at the end of May 2013. Planning consent was duly granted on 7 May 2013 for 4 self-contained flats. 23. Mr Cooper set out that on 5 September 2013 the local planning authority served an enforcement notice on the landlord requiring it be returned to its former hostel use or converted to the four self-contained flats. 24. Mr Cooper confirmed that a year later, on 19 August 2014 ‘Fire Officer’, a Mr Patterson alerted him to continuing use as an HMO and raised concerns over fire safety and the means of escape, however there appeared to be no further enforcement action by the Council at that time. 25. Mr Cooper then set out the background to the attempted access on 15 June 2016 and on refusal, his eventual entry by means of a court order, effected on 30 June 2016 when he carried a detailed inspection of the interior and interviews with tenants in occupation. In a letter dated 4 July 2016 to the landlord, he listed 23 offences in all, against the HMO management regulations, committed under S.72 and S.234 (3) of the Housing Act 2004 and gave a caution. 26. Mr Cooper confirmed that on 11 July 2016, Messrs Brechers solicitiors had contacted him on behalf of the landlord. An application for an HMO licence had been submitted to LB Camden on 10 July 2016. Brechers supplied a copy of a purported completed application for an HMO licence back in 2014, but no received file copy was traced by Mr Cooper. 27. Mr Cooper’s statement listed 14 tenants, all 14 units apparently being in use, and rents totalling £6,910 pcm (£82,920 pa) being recorded as due to the landlords at the date of its preparation. 28. Lastly the applicants provided one signed statement dated 30 June 2016, from Ms Whitehead produced for the magistrates’ court’s proceedings. There were no signed statements from the other three applicants concerning the recent history of the condition or occupation of the property. The Respondent’s Case 29. The respondent provided a written, albeit unsigned witness statement from Mr Issac Mocton on behalf of Kingscroft Estates LLP. The respondent opposed any RRO. 30. The respondent had already served Notices to quit under S.21 on all tenants, prior to their application for an HMO Licence on 10 July 2016. Indeed one of the tenants was unknown to them by the given name, though this argument was not pursued. 31. The respondents stated that; “the Applicants have failed to produce receipts for payments they allege were made whilst our records show some arrears of rent owing.” 32. The respondents stated that the offence of “not being registered an HMO ceased on 10th July 2016 when we applied for a Licence…” and that a period of any RRO be limited to one from 13 December 2015 until 9th July 2016, 209 days in all. 33. The rent paid was all inclusive of water rates, gas, electricity, council tax, cleaning, management, insurance and maintenance were made by the respondents. 34. The respondents had incurred large costs from 13 December 2015 to 13 December 2016, including those arising from the prosecution by LB Camden, which eroded any gains by the respondent. 35. The respondents believed that they had only incurred a loss in this period and had “not gained through proceeds of crime”, which they described as “the basis of the Applicants case”. 36. The respondents argued that the conviction was “relatively minor in nature as evidenced by the relatively low fines imposed. For the lack of a Licence the Respondents were fined £1500”, when under the current regime there was no limit to the level of fine. The £1500 fine was part of a total fine of £4,200,a further £2000 of which had been for failure to secure windows to an accessible but hazardous flat roof. There were in addition, costs of £4,430. 37. The respondents stated that “at no time did any of the Applicants complain in writing or otherwise as to the accommodation notwithstanding the length of time some of the Applicants were occupiers. Indeed the Respondents were considered good landlords with good landlord/tenant relations.” The tenants were happy with accommodation taking into account the low rent being charged for a Central London location a relatively low figure. Two signed witness statements, one from each of two other former tenants at the property were provided. 38. The respondents, whilst pointing out their earlier attempts to apply for an HMO licence, acknowledged that they had not been successful and accepted that they should have followed this up in earlier years. The respondents highlighted that the HMO licence, had, on application, been granted without difficulty and that there was no question over their suitability as a manager. 39. The respondents referred to the financial hardship which any RRO could cause them. They mentioned other substantial costs incurred during the relevant period, legal fees as well as architects fees arising from the need to reconfigure the building “to comply with HMO/Hostel usage”. They stated that the building had now been all but emptied with only two tenants remaining as at 1 February 2017. A list of expenses and invoices “including management, running costs and professional fees” was included. 40. The respondent quoted a full occupancy rent from the property of £82k pa, or some £47k over the period in question, excluding voids and arrears. The respondent argued that they were in fact, making a substantial revenue loss. Mention was also made, in passing to the general decline in capital values and that any RRO would simply add to the hardship to the respondent. 41. The respondent referred to the housing benefit being paid to one of the applicants, the applicants’ representative, Mr Garber, arguing that any money from that source should if anything, be returned to the local housing authority rather than to the individual claimant. Appendix G of their submission included a copy of a record of the quantity of such housing benefits during some of the relevant period accruing to that individual. 42. The respondents referred the tribunal to their schedule of rent arrears which showed that two of the four applicants were in arrears when their tenancies ended and such sums remained outstanding. There were also apparently considerable other void periods as well as substantial arrears owed to the respondent by another tenant. This latter person had also provided one of the witness statements in support of the respondent. 43. The respondents concluded by asking the tribunal not to grant any RRO, because, in summary: 1 Their action in not licensing the HMO was not that serious: 2 They were already suffering considerable consequential financial hardship from the situation at the property: 3 The applicants had never complained but had instead benefited from cheap accommodation in central London.LON/00AG/HMA/2016/0014 · 2017
Flat 14, 87 Abbey Road, London NW8 0AG: LON/00AG/HMK/2017/0003LON/00AG/HMK/2017/0003 · 2017
64 Fitzjohns Avenue, London NW3 5LTLON/00AG/LAM/2017/0023 · 2017
34 Neville Road, Croydon CR0 2DS: LON/00AH/HMT/2017/0003LON/00AH/HMT/2017/0003 · 2017
161 Ewell Road, Surbiton, Surrey, KT 6 6AWLON/00AM/LAM/2015/0023 · 2017
221 Munster Road, London SW6 6BU: LON/00AN/HMA/2016/0011LON/00AN/HMA/2016/0011 · 2017
15a Ditton Road Southall Middlesex UB2 5RZ: LON/00AT/HPO/2016/0009LON/00AT/HPO/2016/0009 · 2017
65 Bulstrode Road, Hounslow, Middlesex TW3 3AN: LON/00AT/HPO/2017/0005LON/00AT/HPO/2017/0005 · 2017
17 St Quintins Avenue, London W10 6NX: LON/00AW/HIN/2016/0017LON/00AW/HIN/2016/0017 · 2017
43 Prentis Road, Streatham, London SW16 1QBLON/00AY/LDC/2017/0031 · 2017
Flat 6A Max House, 1 Canning Road, London E15 3NW: LON/00BB/HMA/2017/0002LON/00BB/HMA/2017/0002 · 2017
148 Wallwood Road, London E11 1AN: LON/00BH/HIN/2016/0027LON/00BH/HIN/2016/0027 · 2017
875A High Road, Leytonstone, London E11 1HR: LON/00BH/HMA/2017/0001LON/00BH/HMA/2017/0001 · 2017
1 Guildhouse Street, London SW1V 1JE: LON/00BK/HMA/2016/0012LON/00BK/HMA/2016/0012 · 2017
8 Molyneux Street, London W1H 5HP: LON/00BK/HMA/2017/0003LON/00BK/HMA/2017/0003 · 2017
Mezzanine Flat, 69 Warwick Avenue, London W9 2PP: LON/00BK/HPO/2017/0004LON/00BK/HPO/2017/0004 · 2017