[2024] UKUT 255 (LC)

Mr Kumar is the registered freehold proprietor of “The Pyekle”, a two-storey house with three bedrooms and shared kitchen and bathroom facilities in Holderness Road, in Balham (the House).

On 4 April 2018 Mr Kumar let the whole House by a written agreement to LML for a term from 31 March 2018 to 30 September 2019 (the Headlease). The Headlease reserved a monthly rent of £2,600. It contained covenants by LML that it would “not permit more than four occupants to reside in the Property at any one time for the duration of the Tenancy” (clause 11.2).

LML then granted sub-tenancies of individual rooms in the House to the respondents and to two others, so that, in breach of the terms of the Headlease, the House came to be occupied by five individuals. That made the House an HMO which required a licence under Part 2, Housing Act 2004 (the 2004 Act). It is common ground that the House was not licensed.

The sub-tenancies to the three respondents were each granted for a term which continued beyond 30 September 2019, the term date of the Headlease. The first was granted to Ms Marshall on 10 August 2019 and was for a term of six months expiring on 9 February 2020. On 23 August 2019, a sublease of a different room was granted to Mr Niven for five months ending on 12 February 2020; this was followed by a further sub-tenancy to him of the same room on 10 January 2020 for a term of six months from 12 January. On 19 September 2019, a sub-tenancy of a third room was granted to Mr Kolev for a term of 12 months ending on 19 September 2020.

In its decision the FTT explained what happened when the Headlease expired on 30 September 2019:

“What is notable about each of these tenancies is that they were granted before the expiry of the term of LML’s tenancy but expired long after that term had ended. It seems that neither [Mr Kumar] nor LML saw any significance in this as they both carried on as if nothing had changed. LML managed the property on a day-to-day basis, reverting only to [Mr Kumar] for significant items of repair or maintenance. As far as [Mr Kumar] was concerned, he had handed over all legal and management responsibility to LML. LML collected the rents from [the respondents] and paid sums to [Mr Kumar] in purported discharge of the rent agreed in their tenancy. (In fact, [Mr Kumar] complained that he only received about half of the £2,600 per month due from LML.)”