A landlord has been ordered to repay £9,671 to three tenants after a tribunal found that while trying to avoid an HMO licensing scheme, he warned them they would be blacklisted from other tenancies.

Ben Sturnham applied for an HMO licence in January 2025, but the First Tier Property Tribunal found that his four-bedroom property in Horfield, Bristol, should have been licensed from April 2022.

The landlord argued that he had not been aware of the requirement until the council contacted him directly in October 2024. However, the tribunal found that he had been sent information about the licensing scheme before it came into force, including a council letter forwarded to him by the tenants in January 2022.

It also found that the council had written to him at his London address in January and February 2023 warning that the property needed to be licensed.

Regime

The tribunal said Sturnham instead tried to take the property outside the licensing regime. In January 2024, he told the tenants that the council was trying to enforce that the property was an HMO and that he was “fighting” the decision. He also tried to persuade the tenants to sign a joint tenancy agreement for the whole property at a higher rent.

The tribunal said the seriousness of the offence was increased by the fact it continued for two years and eight months and because of the condition and safety of the property. Among other issues, smoke alarms had not been changed since Sturnham bought the property in 2004, while the tribunal found gaps in electrical and EPC documentation.

Declined

After they declined to sign the proposed joint tenancy, he told them they had to leave, referred to a future Section 21 eviction and warned that failure to leave could result in them being “blacklisted for future Bristol tenancy agreements”.

In June 2025 he moved into one of the vacant rooms to “oversee a light touch refurbishment”.

Sturnham explained that his return to the property was driven by financial necessity, including mortgage costs, rent and council tax arrears. He also complained of substantial damage to the property and told the tribunal that his debts from the letting and related litigation were potentially approaching £50,000.

The tribunal found his conduct was relevant when deciding the amount of rent to be repaid. It ordered him to pay 80% of the rent for two tenants and 70% for the third.

Photo: Google Streetview

‍