A landlord whose tenants had to use toilets at work when repairs weren’t done at their unlicensed flat has been ordered to repay them £24,480.

A First Tier Property Tribunal heard that landlord Abul Kalam Azad didn’t have an additional licence for the flat in Broomfield Street, London, under Tower Hamlets’ scheme, between September 2023 and August 2024.

The three tenants told the tribunal that both the ground floor and first-floor toilets became loose and started leaking, but when it was reported to managing agent Oliver Brooks Ltd (OBL), Imran Hussain responded, “I’ve seen women live in a worser state”. He told them not to use the toilet and threatened to give notice.

They said OBL failed to arrange repairs to the upstairs toilet and when they raised this, Hussain responded “Are you ok to end the contract”. It meant the tenants had to use the toilet at their university and workplaces. No extractor fan in the bathroom also led to dampness and mould.

Visited

The tenants added that their landlord visited the property several times, unannounced or with little notice and when they took issue with this, he threatened eviction.

At the hearing, Azad challenged his interaction with the tenants and stressed that he delegated all responsibility to his agents, who arranged the tenancies and managed the property.

However, the tribunal ruled he had no reasonable excuse for failing to licence the flat and there was no explanation for this failure. The judge said: “The fact his agents, OBL, arranged the tenancies and managed the property is no excuse. The appointment of agents does not absolve him of responsibility.”

Electrical

The tribunal accepted that the tenants weren’t given electrical or gas safety certificates for the property or an EPC and there were no smoke detectors in any of the rooms. It awarded the tenants a Rent Repayment Order worth 80% of the £30,600 rent they had paid during the tenancy.

It said there had been “clear misconduct” on the part of the landlord and OBL. The judge added: “We also accept the applicants’ evidence regarding the broken toilets, lack of ventilation and damp/mould in the bathroom, the respondent’s visits to the property and the implied threats of eviction from both the respondent and Mr Hussain. We should add that Mr Hussain’s response to the initial complaint about the upstairs toilet was dismissive, misogynistic and wholly unprofessional.”

Photo: Google Streetview

‍