A ruling of the First Tier Property Tribunal has put a London property management firm in the clear following a dispute concerning a licence for an HMO.
Robert Hallet, a former music promoter who has worked with other A-list musicians including Justin Bieber, told the tribunal that he was initially unaware of the need for a licence for his HMO in 2019.
He said he had not been informed of the need by his managing agency, NorthWest6 in Kilburn, which he said had been employed for 15 years to look after the property.
The tribunal was told that Hallet was not a professional landlord, had a busy international career as a music promoter travelling extensively without using a permanent base, and in any case had instructed the agency to manage the property.
Hallet told the tribunal that he worked with well-known bands and was, in his own words, “a global touring expert.”
In 2019, when the absence of a licence came to light, he had been on the road for two and a half months straight with 22 stage shows, and did not return to the UK until September of that year. He was unaware that the property had been “turned into an HMO” having previously let the premises to non-sharers.
But three of his tenants contacted Brent council in March 2020 about their landlord’s alleged failure to repair a shower and also reported that the house was unlicensed.
The Tribunal this month found that his relationship with the managing agency was patchy and that Hallet himself had assumed day to day management of the property at the time the property was unlicensed.
It made a Rent Repayment Order totalling £11,712 with £300 costs.
You can see details of the whole case here.
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
.png)
%20(002).jpg)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
The Tribunal this month found that his relationship with the managing agency was patchy and that Hallet himself had assumed day to day management of the property at the time the property was unlicensed. It made a Rent Repayment Order totalling £11,712 with £300 costs.
Well, saving a few quid on management fees was a false economy, Mr Hallet.
Patchy, what sort of legal term is that? Asumed day to day management, whilst he was abroad? Assumed ? which is a rather imprecise term, and suggests that the managing agent was actually responsible.
Can he appeal ? And is he going to? Suugest the courts have picked on a soft touch tto make the governments' point.
The law with regard to property matters is nowhere near as common sense logical as we might think and hope.
A colleague of mine did a favour for an acquaintance who is a landlord here but lives in Turkey most of the time. Precisely why, I don’t know, but the ‘favour’ consisted of having the rent paid into his account each month which he then remitted to the landlord’s bank account in Turkey. There was no other involvement.
A random council inspection revealed that there were 4 adults in the flat and the subsequent offence was having an unlicensed HMO. The tenants said they were all related – cousins, no less and with the council unable to prove otherwise, the HMO element was withdrawn and not having a Selective licence was substituted. The council instituted proceedings against my colleague for managing a property without a licence and of course, he totally denied this.
However the law says that even though my colleague had nothing to do with finding the tenants, setting up the AST, referencing the tenants and dealing with maintenance issues that the tenants had reported, the sheer act of collecting the rent – even though it went straight into his account and straight out again was regarding by the Housing Act 2004 as “managing or being in control of a property”. A QC was retained who advised him to plead guilty to mitigate the level of fine as there was no way he would be able to win that one. He was fined £5000 with a 50% reduction because of an early guilty plea.
To this day, he has never regarded himself as having been the manager of, or in control of that property and while he thinks (as do I) that this part of the law is bonkers, there was no defence that could have stood up at the Frist Tier Tribunal.
The managing agent absolutely got away with one there
jonathan,
I would have thought that your colleague was at risk from money laundering laws, tax laws etc. Further he could have got another Counsels opininion. What is selective licensing? Which tribunal was it and why did it go to a tribunal and not a criminal court? Was he performing this task for purely altruistic reasons? Or was he paid?
Please login to comment