Loading Guild Resources
Loading Guild Resources
Loading Guild Resources
Claiming special treatment as an amateur landlord with a limited knowledge of housing law failed to convince a judge hearing a rent repayment case.
Aruna Murthy told the First-tier Tribunal she rented out three rooms in her flat in Acton, West London, while living in the USA. The money was spent on managing the flat and paying the mortgage, but she still made a £10,000 a year loss.
The flat should have had an additional licence from Ealing Council, but Murthy had not applied for one. The tribunal heard she had not protected the deposits paid by the tenants, had no electrical safety certificate and lacked fire safety equipment, among a catalogue of failings.
Finding the case proved, Judge Peter Korn awarded the tenants £10,000 against a claim of £19,200.
The judge said he was not convinced the landlord's personal problems amounted to a reasonable defence.
"However, and as she appears herself to accept, this explanation is insufficient to form the basis of a reasonable excuse defence," he said.
"The case law clearly shows that ignorance is not a defence, and nor is the fact that the landlord was out of the country or was going through some personal difficulties. We therefore agree with the applicants that the Murthy's explanations for her failure to obtain a licence do not amount to an objectively reasonable excuse."
Read the case summary: Mistry and Bryer v Murthy
Tenants claiming a rent refund because their landlord had no house in multiple occupation licence in place.
But the First-tier Tribunal threw out their claim to make the landlord repay £20,400 in rent because their timing was wrong.
The renters moved into their flat in Clifton, Bristol, on a 12-month tenancy agreement starting on November 4, 2021. They left the flat on January 20, 2024, after the landlord Park Asset Management Limited served a Section 21 no-fault eviction notice.
The tenants argued the flat was unlicensed until July 2022, when a five-year licence was granted.
However, rent repayment order rules only allow a successful claim for the 12 months ending on the day the application is made. As the flat had a licence at that time, the claim was rejected.
Read the case summary: Cook and Others v Park Asset Management Ltd
Landlord San Lan Cheung tried several times to apply online for an additional licence for a three-bedroom terrace house in Forest Hill, South London, but failed to complete the process.
That meant her house was an unlicensed HMO.
The First-tier Tribunal decided the problems with licensing were the landlord's fault and not Southwark Council's, so it rejected her claim that she had a defence of reasonable excuse for not having a licence.
The landlord was ordered to refund the rent of £4,239.