A 92-year-old landlord has been slapped with a £9,360 Rent Repayment Order after two tenants took him to tribunal for renting out an unlicensed HMO.
Terence Hillman’s three-bedroom flat in Richmond Road (main image) in Ealing, came under the council’s additional scheme. However, his solicitor argued that the landlord had no knowledge of the licensing regime, did not take an active part in the management of his properties, and that Mr Hattersley, who is in his 80s, had done so on his behalf for a number of years.
He added that it was objectively reasonable for someone of that age to be ignorant of licensing requirements, not just because of his age, but also because he was not managing the property himself.
A First Tier Property Tribunal judge said there was nothing to show that Mr Hattersley was under a contractual obligation to inform Hillman of the licensing requirements. “We do not consider that the agreed ignorance of the respondent of these legal requirements on his business amounted to an objectively reasonable excuse,” he said.
“It may be that being old reduces one’s capacity to undertake business activities subject to regulatory requirements and litigation, but if that is the case, it is incumbent on a party to make other arrangements to ensure compliance.”
When the tenancy came to an end, the landlord failed to engage with the deposit process, so the tenants had to submit a statutory declaration. And while there was some appropriate provision, fire safety was a significant issue at the property, said the judge, who added that the presence of battery-only alarms suggested that there was no fire risk assessment, or no implementation of one.
He ordered that the tenants should share the RRO, set at 65% of the maximum possible total.
Tags:
Comments