Case No. UKUT-164-(LC)-UTLC-No:-LC-2021-476
Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber

Case No. UKUT-164-(LC)-UTLC-No:-LC-2021-476

Fecha: 28-Abr-2022

The facts

7.The Tenants were formerly all tenants of the Landlord at Flat 8, Simpson’s House. Simpson’s House is part of a former industrial building in Dalston which comprises 2-4 Somerford Grove, and 6 Somerford Grove. It immediately adjoins and is attached to Olympic House, a building at 8 Somerford Grove which also belongs to the Landlord. Both Simpson’s House and Olympic House have been converted to provide self-contained flats. Flat 8 is a three-bedroomed flat with a kitchen, living room and two bathrooms. 8.On 18 September 2018 the Landlord granted a single tenancy of Flat 8 to the Tenants at a rent of £2,361 a month. Two weeks later, on 1 October 2018, the local housing authority introduced an additional licensing scheme which required that all HMOs in the area to which the scheme applied should be licensed under Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004. 9.Although the three Tenants took a single tenancy of the whole flat and shared their housing and utilities costs, it has never been disputed that the six conditions comprising the self-contained flat test in section 254(3), 2004 Act were satisfied while they were in occupation and the flat was therefore an HMO. Nor has it been disputed that the additional licensing scheme applied to it.10.The Landlord is a large property investment company and it appointed Tower Quay Ltd as its letting and managing agent for Simpson’s House. The contract between the Landlord and the agent required the agent to ensure that the Landlord complied with all relevant statutory provisions relating to the management and occupation of the property. The FTT had before it a written statement by a director of the agent accepting that it should have advised the Landlord that a licence was required but that it had not done so.11.At the start of the tenancy the Tenants complained to the agent about various matters concerning the flat and the building, including the installation of extractor fans in the bathrooms and the provision of keys for a mailbox. Later they raised further concerns, including about the presence of mice in the building and damage caused to the front door by vandals which in turn led to a problem of the theft of post from the common parts. They also joined with other tenants of the building in forming a tenant’s association, Somerford Grove Renters.12.On 8 September 2019 the tenancy was renewed for a further year.13.In March 2020, following the nationwide lockdown imposed in response to the Coronavirus pandemic, Dr Osserman joined as a co-signatory to a letter to the Landlord asking for financial help for tenants and a guarantee of security of occupation. The Landlord’s response was unsympathetic and attracted publicity in The Guardian on 21 April 2020 under the headline “Tenants told to use lunch and holiday savings to pay full rent”. One of those quoted in the newspaper article was Dr Osserman’s husband, Marc Sutton, who also resides in the flat, although he is not one of the tenants. At about the same time Dr Osserman gave interviews to journalists about what he described in his evidence as “cruel treatment during a pandemic from a wealthy commercial landlord”. After that, Dr Osserman believed that he was being subject to surveillance. He later gave evidence to the FTT that security guards had followed him and filmed him in the building, and that when he questioned one of them he was told that the guard had been instructed to do so by Tower Quay, the Landlord’s agents.14.Three months after the newspaper article appeared the Tenants were given notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1985. The notice was dated 20 July 2020 and required the Tenants to leave the flat after 21 September 2020. It was invalid because emergency legislation introduced in March 2020 had extended the minimum period of notice to three months.15.The notice was followed by an email from the Landlord’s agent on 21 July which stated that the reason the tenancy would not be renewed was a “business decision”. The email also included a statement that “Failure to surrender the premises on the date required by law will result in forfeiture of your deposits, proceedings for immediate possession and could harm your credit rating.” In response to this threatening communication the Tenants sought the advice of the local housing authority, three of whose officers visited the flat on 10 August. 16.A second section 21 notice was served by the Landlord on 10 September 2020, but this too was invalid and was withdrawn on 18 November when a gas safety certificate and an energy performance certificate were served on the Tenants for the first time. 17.At about this time the Tenants were advised by the local housing authority that the flat was an unlicensed HMO, and on 28 October 2020 they made their application to the FTT for a rent repayment order.18.A third section 21 notice, this time of the required six months duration, was served on 23 November. In compliance with that notice the Tenants left the flat on 26 April 2021.